FabSwingers.com mobile

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 Politics

Universal Healthcare

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *cottishVikingBearMan
over a year ago

N. London

One of the more frustrating things is getting right-wing people to see past the end of their own nose sometimes.

The advantage of universal healthcare, along with so many other socialist ideas such as fair, inflation-linked wages and paid maternity/family leave, is that it makes for a better, healthier workforce that is more productive.

When you have a worker who is well, and who isn't having health issues, they can be more productive at work. Also sick people tend to die earlier, resulting in conpanies losing trained and skilled employees.

Same for educated employees; they're better at their jobs. Same goes for happier employees.

Exploiting the poor and keeeping them down will only work to a limited extent.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"One of the more frustrating things is getting right-wing people to see past the end of their own nose sometimes.

The advantage of universal healthcare, along with so many other socialist ideas such as fair, inflation-linked wages and paid maternity/family leave, is that it makes for a better, healthier workforce that is more productive.

When you have a worker who is well, and who isn't having health issues, they can be more productive at work. Also sick people tend to die earlier, resulting in conpanies losing trained and skilled employees.

Same for educated employees; they're better at their jobs. Same goes for happier employees.

Exploiting the poor and keeping them down will only work to a limited extent. "
Yet I see people everyday being a determent to themselves and society because they choose to self inflict and expect everyone else to agree with thier choices . How does that justify everyone else paying for that stupidity?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

Where do you draw the line? 'Ah because you smoke, you have to pay for treatment'? I no longer binge drink, or smoke socially. If I were to be diagnosed with something which could be linked to either binge drinking, or smoking, would you make me pay for treatment? Would the link have to be unquestionably clear? Given the range of different impacts both these things can have, that leaves a hell of a lot. 'You've gone impotent, ah well, you shouldn't have smoked at high school'. Where does it end?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Ah Blu another week another anti NHS post! Why are you so against the idea of universal healthcare funded through taxation? Why as an American does this even concern you? I believe you are ex-army and now a pharmacist right? Does the company you work for have its greedy eye focused on getting a piece of a privatised NHS pie? Does that help your share portfolio?

You obviously have private health insurance. Is that a personal plan or a company plan provides by your employer?

Here’s a scenario...

You lose your job. It takes a long time to find another job. In that period it becomes simply unaffordable to pay your health insurance (or you lost it with your job). You get ill. How you paying for healthcare?

Ok say you had enough savings or family helped out. You get a new job and can either afford a new insurance policy or the company provides one. Will they cover your now pre-existing condition? Will they cover the ongoing cost of drugs or therapy needed as a result of the illness? What if it turns out the illness was hereditary or caused by lifestyle?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't? "

If you can accept universal education so that every child gets an education, then accepting universal healthcare is not such a great leap.

A measure of how civilised your country is how you look after the young, the infirm and the old.

As it happens, the UK is failing dismally at the moment in its care for elders.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't? "

Do you think that the negatives that you perceive, outweigh the benefits?

An individual's health is as much a matter of accidents of birth or just accidents as deliberate acts.

You could ask where you draw the line at where you allow those who are not in control of their medical and mental health situation to suffer.

It's not easy, but I'm inclined to lean to being more inclusive than excluding.

What do you think?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

If you can accept universal education so that every child gets an education, then accepting universal healthcare is not such a great leap.

A measure of how civilised your country is how you look after the young, the infirm and the old.

As it happens, the UK is failing dismally at the moment in its care for elders."
Low income families get free or reduced healthcare for children up until the age of 18. Depends on the household income.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

If you can accept universal education so that every child gets an education, then accepting universal healthcare is not such a great leap.

A measure of how civilised your country is how you look after the young, the infirm and the old.

As it happens, the UK is failing dismally at the moment in its care for elders. Low income families get free or reduced healthcare for children up until the age of 18. Depends on the household income."

And the elderly?

What about deductibles?

Guess how many people are declared bankrupt in the UK every year due to medical bills? Zero.

And in the USA? 643,000

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There is a question of whether free health service reduces personal responsibility. Imo, I'm not convinced. Most ailments affect a person more directly than just their bank balance. And nothing in the US suggests private healthcare increases person responsiblity.

The other line to draw is what is available ... That's an interesting discussion. Imo more Mental Health support would help reduce other stresses in the health service.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"There is a question of whether free health service reduces personal responsibility. Imo, I'm not convinced. Most ailments affect a person more directly than just their bank balance. And nothing in the US suggests private healthcare increases person responsiblity.

The other line to draw is what is available ... That's an interesting discussion. Imo more Mental Health support would help reduce other stresses in the health service. "

As a bare minimum, IMO, the NHS should provide life saving procedures and treatments. However, I would argue that IVF should not be free on the NHS (certainly not three attempts). Similarly anything elective.

I guess the grey areas are, for example, cosmetic procedures where it has been proven it would benefit an individual's physical or mental health.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"There is a question of whether free health service reduces personal responsibility. Imo, I'm not convinced. Most ailments affect a person more directly than just their bank balance. And nothing in the US suggests private healthcare increases person responsiblity.

The other line to draw is what is available ... That's an interesting discussion. Imo more Mental Health support would help reduce other stresses in the health service.

As a bare minimum, IMO, the NHS should provide life saving procedures and treatments. However, I would argue that IVF should not be free on the NHS (certainly not three attempts). Similarly anything elective.

I guess the grey areas are, for example, cosmetic procedures where it has been proven it would benefit an individual's physical or mental health. "
agreed... That's where MH support verus addressing the symptoms (as it were) kicks in. Imo many addictive-related issues (Inc some obesity) is linked to MH.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

Medical insurance is just as flawed as all other forms of insurance.

If they can find a loophole or a way of getting out of paying they will.

The medical system in the US is a total scam.

You go in for something they throw everything at you to be able to put scans and the like on the bill and then charge the insurance company a small fortune.

When in reality a proper diagnosis early on could have saved many hundreds of thousands.

It's no different from insurance work done on a car following an accident and billing unnecessary hours to the job.

Obviously one of the biggest issues over in that there US if A is prescription costs and people being unable to afford the extortionate amount for said prescription.

I believe this is one of the reasons why the American forces are so big people join to benefit from healthcare particularly from poor deprived areas.

I could be wrong Blu?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uietbloke67Man
over a year ago

outside your bedroom window ;-)


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

If you can accept universal education so that every child gets an education, then accepting universal healthcare is not such a great leap.

A measure of how civilised your country is how you look after the young, the infirm and the old.

As it happens, the UK is failing dismally at the moment in its care for elders. Low income families get free or reduced healthcare for children up until the age of 18. Depends on the household income."

Really the American Health Care System is a good idea.....get a grip of yer sell.. ffs

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester

From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

"
The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points."

So I will ask again as I did above...

Here’s a scenario...

You lose your job. It takes a long time to find another job. In that period it becomes simply unaffordable to pay your health insurance (or you lost it with your job). You get ill. How you paying for healthcare?

Ok say you had enough savings or family helped out. You get a new job and can either afford a new insurance policy or the company provides one. Will they cover your now pre-existing condition? Will they cover the ongoing cost of drugs or therapy needed as a result of the illness? What if it turns out the illness was hereditary or caused by lifestyle?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points.

So I will ask again as I did above...

Here’s a scenario...

You lose your job. It takes a long time to find another job. In that period it becomes simply unaffordable to pay your health insurance (or you lost it with your job). You get ill. How you paying for healthcare?

Ok say you had enough savings or family helped out. You get a new job and can either afford a new insurance policy or the company provides one. Will they cover your now pre-existing condition? Will they cover the ongoing cost of drugs or therapy needed as a result of the illness? What if it turns out the illness was hereditary or caused by lifestyle?"
I have the VA you do realize the law was signed in 2019 that insurance can't deny you anymore for a pre existing condition are you aware ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points."

I’m fortunate that I’m wealthy enough not to worry with either version however, I have enough respect for my fellow citizens and their various circumstances to want them to be able to access free at source healthcare.

The NHS isn’t perfect by any means and could be a lot better but I don’t want someone who is sick being rejected because they don’t have the correct insurance. That’s taking us back to the dark ages . I’m alright Jack is not a good way for human being to behave.

No one would have any of their benefits without society’s contribution. Not one person does it on their own or is self reliant that’s just a myth,

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points.

So I will ask again as I did above...

Here’s a scenario...

You lose your job. It takes a long time to find another job. In that period it becomes simply unaffordable to pay your health insurance (or you lost it with your job). You get ill. How you paying for healthcare?

Ok say you had enough savings or family helped out. You get a new job and can either afford a new insurance policy or the company provides one. Will they cover your now pre-existing condition? Will they cover the ongoing cost of drugs or therapy needed as a result of the illness? What if it turns out the illness was hereditary or caused by lifestyle? I have the VA you do realize the law was signed in 2019 that insurance can't deny you anymore for a pre existing condition are you aware ? "

Erm unless you don’t pay your premiums also

The only exception to the pre-existing coverage rule is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans -- the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions.

Isn’t it great that tax payers foot the bill for all those veterans. Lucky them. Imagine that, US tax receipts going to healthcare . It’s progress

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points.

So I will ask again as I did above...

Here’s a scenario...

You lose your job. It takes a long time to find another job. In that period it becomes simply unaffordable to pay your health insurance (or you lost it with your job). You get ill. How you paying for healthcare?

Ok say you had enough savings or family helped out. You get a new job and can either afford a new insurance policy or the company provides one. Will they cover your now pre-existing condition? Will they cover the ongoing cost of drugs or therapy needed as a result of the illness? What if it turns out the illness was hereditary or caused by lifestyle? I have the VA you do realize the law was signed in 2019 that insurance can't deny you anymore for a pre existing condition are you aware ?

Erm unless you don’t pay your premiums also

The only exception to the pre-existing coverage rule is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans -- the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions.

Isn’t it great that tax payers foot the bill for all those veterans. Lucky them. Imagine that, US tax receipts going to healthcare . It’s progress "
yes it is great and isn't it great that alot of us prefer to use private insurance. Because of the service and government red tape. Yes good times

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uietbloke67Man
over a year ago

outside your bedroom window ;-)


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points.

So I will ask again as I did above...

Here’s a scenario...

You lose your job. It takes a long time to find another job. In that period it becomes simply unaffordable to pay your health insurance (or you lost it with your job). You get ill. How you paying for healthcare?

Ok say you had enough savings or family helped out. You get a new job and can either afford a new insurance policy or the company provides one. Will they cover your now pre-existing condition? Will they cover the ongoing cost of drugs or therapy needed as a result of the illness? What if it turns out the illness was hereditary or caused by lifestyle? I have the VA you do realize the law was signed in 2019 that insurance can't deny you anymore for a pre existing condition are you aware ?

Erm unless you don’t pay your premiums also

The only exception to the pre-existing coverage rule is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans -- the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions.

Isn’t it great that tax payers foot the bill for all those veterans. Lucky them. Imagine that, US tax receipts going to healthcare . It’s progress yes it is great and isn't it great that alot of us prefer to use private insurance. Because of the service and government red tape. Yes good times

You sound like a right wing BOT

"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points.

So I will ask again as I did above...

Here’s a scenario...

You lose your job. It takes a long time to find another job. In that period it becomes simply unaffordable to pay your health insurance (or you lost it with your job). You get ill. How you paying for healthcare?

Ok say you had enough savings or family helped out. You get a new job and can either afford a new insurance policy or the company provides one. Will they cover your now pre-existing condition? Will they cover the ongoing cost of drugs or therapy needed as a result of the illness? What if it turns out the illness was hereditary or caused by lifestyle? I have the VA you do realize the law was signed in 2019 that insurance can't deny you anymore for a pre existing condition are you aware ?

Erm unless you don’t pay your premiums also

The only exception to the pre-existing coverage rule is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans -- the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions.

Isn’t it great that tax payers foot the bill for all those veterans. Lucky them. Imagine that, US tax receipts going to healthcare . It’s progress yes it is great and isn't it great that alot of us prefer to use private insurance. Because of the service and government red tape. Yes good times

"

You do know that you can choose to pay for private medical insurance here too, don't you?

Faster treatment in a plusher environment. However, if you cannot afford that then you will still receive a basic level of treatment (excellent compared to most parts of the world).

Everyone is treated at least as well as your ex-servicemen. Why is that a bad thing?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points.

So I will ask again as I did above...

Here’s a scenario...

You lose your job. It takes a long time to find another job. In that period it becomes simply unaffordable to pay your health insurance (or you lost it with your job). You get ill. How you paying for healthcare?

Ok say you had enough savings or family helped out. You get a new job and can either afford a new insurance policy or the company provides one. Will they cover your now pre-existing condition? Will they cover the ongoing cost of drugs or therapy needed as a result of the illness? What if it turns out the illness was hereditary or caused by lifestyle? I have the VA you do realize the law was signed in 2019 that insurance can't deny you anymore for a pre existing condition are you aware ?

Erm unless you don’t pay your premiums also

The only exception to the pre-existing coverage rule is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans -- the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions.

Isn’t it great that tax payers foot the bill for all those veterans. Lucky them. Imagine that, US tax receipts going to healthcare . It’s progress yes it is great and isn't it great that alot of us prefer to use private insurance. Because of the service and government red tape. Yes good times

You do know that you can choose to pay for private medical insurance here too, don't you?

Faster treatment in a plusher environment. However, if you cannot afford that then you will still receive a basic level of treatment (excellent compared to most parts of the world).

Everyone is treated at least as well as your ex-servicemen. Why is that a bad thing?"
They do have state run medical insurance here if you can't afford it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points.

So I will ask again as I did above...

Here’s a scenario...

You lose your job. It takes a long time to find another job. In that period it becomes simply unaffordable to pay your health insurance (or you lost it with your job). You get ill. How you paying for healthcare?

Ok say you had enough savings or family helped out. You get a new job and can either afford a new insurance policy or the company provides one. Will they cover your now pre-existing condition? Will they cover the ongoing cost of drugs or therapy needed as a result of the illness? What if it turns out the illness was hereditary or caused by lifestyle? I have the VA you do realize the law was signed in 2019 that insurance can't deny you anymore for a pre existing condition are you aware ?

Erm unless you don’t pay your premiums also

The only exception to the pre-existing coverage rule is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans -- the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions.

Isn’t it great that tax payers foot the bill for all those veterans. Lucky them. Imagine that, US tax receipts going to healthcare . It’s progress yes it is great and isn't it great that alot of us prefer to use private insurance. Because of the service and government red tape. Yes good times

You do know that you can choose to pay for private medical insurance here too, don't you?

Faster treatment in a plusher environment. However, if you cannot afford that then you will still receive a basic level of treatment (excellent compared to most parts of the world).

Everyone is treated at least as well as your ex-servicemen. Why is that a bad thing?"

Erm yes to your first question.

On the plusher wouldn’t it be interesting if the training of all medical staff was free but they then had to work for the NHS for a minimum 10 years as pay back. Less of a drain on the NHS and a reduction in the less plush stuff.

The unrestricted privatisation is taking tax revenues over and above those needs to create profits and subsequent dividends.

The servicemen point you are missing completely . The poster is claiming he has a private system which protects him a a nd is there based on his CV own decisions and decisions in life. It’s funded by the tax system which he objects to being used to fund others in need. Hope that explains it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't? "

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points.

So I will ask again as I did above...

Here’s a scenario...

You lose your job. It takes a long time to find another job. In that period it becomes simply unaffordable to pay your health insurance (or you lost it with your job). You get ill. How you paying for healthcare?

Ok say you had enough savings or family helped out. You get a new job and can either afford a new insurance policy or the company provides one. Will they cover your now pre-existing condition? Will they cover the ongoing cost of drugs or therapy needed as a result of the illness? What if it turns out the illness was hereditary or caused by lifestyle? I have the VA you do realize the law was signed in 2019 that insurance can't deny you anymore for a pre existing condition are you aware ?

Erm unless you don’t pay your premiums also

The only exception to the pre-existing coverage rule is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans -- the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions.

Isn’t it great that tax payers foot the bill for all those veterans. Lucky them. Imagine that, US tax receipts going to healthcare . It’s progress yes it is great and isn't it great that alot of us prefer to use private insurance. Because of the service and government red tape. Yes good times

You do know that you can choose to pay for private medical insurance here too, don't you?

Faster treatment in a plusher environment. However, if you cannot afford that then you will still receive a basic level of treatment (excellent compared to most parts of the world).

Everyone is treated at least as well as your ex-servicemen. Why is that a bad thing?

Erm yes to your first question.

On the plusher wouldn’t it be interesting if the training of all medical staff was free but they then had to work for the NHS for a minimum 10 years as pay back. Less of a drain on the NHS and a reduction in the less plush stuff.

The unrestricted privatisation is taking tax revenues over and above those needs to create profits and subsequent dividends.

The servicemen point you are missing completely . The poster is claiming he has a private system which protects him a a nd is there based on his CV own decisions and decisions in life. It’s funded by the tax system which he objects to being used to fund others in need. Hope that explains it. "

My questions were not directed at you.

My point is that we have a standard of basic care of a level equivalent to military veterans in the US, which the poster appears to believe is a good thing. I don't understand why it isn't good for everyone.

Private medical insurance is a convenient, but unnecessary, luxury. That is fine. It turns a profit and is treated as such.

An alternative to your proposal is that private healthcare in the UK could pay an additional medical training tax as they freeload on NHS training costs. This would help national staffing shortages.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say?"
yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points.

So I will ask again as I did above...

Here’s a scenario...

You lose your job. It takes a long time to find another job. In that period it becomes simply unaffordable to pay your health insurance (or you lost it with your job). You get ill. How you paying for healthcare?

Ok say you had enough savings or family helped out. You get a new job and can either afford a new insurance policy or the company provides one. Will they cover your now pre-existing condition? Will they cover the ongoing cost of drugs or therapy needed as a result of the illness? What if it turns out the illness was hereditary or caused by lifestyle? I have the VA you do realize the law was signed in 2019 that insurance can't deny you anymore for a pre existing condition are you aware ?

Erm unless you don’t pay your premiums also

The only exception to the pre-existing coverage rule is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans -- the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions.

Isn’t it great that tax payers foot the bill for all those veterans. Lucky them. Imagine that, US tax receipts going to healthcare . It’s progress yes it is great and isn't it great that alot of us prefer to use private insurance. Because of the service and government red tape. Yes good times

You do know that you can choose to pay for private medical insurance here too, don't you?

Faster treatment in a plusher environment. However, if you cannot afford that then you will still receive a basic level of treatment (excellent compared to most parts of the world).

Everyone is treated at least as well as your ex-servicemen. Why is that a bad thing?

Erm yes to your first question.

On the plusher wouldn’t it be interesting if the training of all medical staff was free but they then had to work for the NHS for a minimum 10 years as pay back. Less of a drain on the NHS and a reduction in the less plush stuff.

The unrestricted privatisation is taking tax revenues over and above those needs to create profits and subsequent dividends.

The servicemen point you are missing completely . The poster is claiming he has a private system which protects him a a nd is there based on his CV own decisions and decisions in life. It’s funded by the tax system which he objects to being used to fund others in need. Hope that explains it.

My questions were not directed at you.

My point is that we have a standard of basic care of a level equivalent to military veterans in the US, which the poster appears to believe is a good thing. I don't understand why it isn't good for everyone.

Private medical insurance is a convenient, but unnecessary, luxury. That is fine. It turns a profit and is treated as such.

An alternative to your proposal is that private healthcare in the UK could pay an additional medical training tax as they freeload on NHS training costs. This would help national staffing shortages. "

My apologies I replied to the wrong post.

I am on the same page as you .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Honestly I don't see the attraction to universal healthcare. Sorry I sound like idiot to some. Not going to mention anything about the NHS comparisons. I guess just as long as I happy with mine no sense in discussing it anymore.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *coptoCouple
over a year ago

Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth

Because the NHS is free “at the point of service” patients, never seeing an invoice and just making an appointment with their G.P., picking up their prescription drugs from the Pharmacy, calling an ambulance or turning up at A & E, have no idea of the REAL cost of all these services.

Here in France, 85% of these costs are paid for by the State for anybody “in the system”. This already means that there’s a check to exclude any “illegals” or “without papers”. As for the other chargeable 15%, obviously the old, disabled, seriously ill or disadvantaged are exempt, everybody else has to pay the 15% or take out a health insurance policy to cover it.

Choice of doctor, treatment etc. is very personal, just this morning for example I went to a doctor for consultation (25 euro) and was given a list of the analyses she needed, round the corner to have a blood sample taken for 78 euro. 85% will be reimbursed (a posteriori, I’m not in the French system), the remaining 15% would be reimbursed if I had this separate insurance (I don’t).

Not saying the system is better or worse: advantages and disadvantages, the convenience of immediate attention, but the inconvenience of perhaps having to travel to a laboratory or x-ray clinic. BUT every French citizen has a good idea of just how much first-world health care costs. The UK frequent-flyers who visit their quack every other day perhaps don’t realise (or don’t care?) that it’s hardly a free service, and “I worked all my life and paid my taxes” doesn’t cover it. A friend in the UK has just been “upgraded” from a beta-blocker costing pennies to an ARNI (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor) that has an American patent and will cost the NHS many thousands a year. The immunotherapy drug PEMBROZILUMAB works out at over ten thousand quid PER INJECTION.

The NHS as we know it is unsustainable...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hirleyMan
over a year ago

somewhere


"Honestly I don't see the attraction to universal healthcare. Sorry I sound like idiot to some. Not going to mention anything about the NHS comparisons. I guess just as long as I happy with mine no sense in discussing it anymore."

If you're saying that you believe the UK should be more like the US system then no, I strongly disagree with that.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uietbloke67Man
over a year ago

outside your bedroom window ;-)


"Because the NHS is free “at the point of service” patients, never seeing an invoice and just making an appointment with their G.P., picking up their prescription drugs from the Pharmacy, calling an ambulance or turning up at A & E, have no idea of the REAL cost of all these services.

Here in France, 85% of these costs are paid for by the State for anybody “in the system”. This already means that there’s a check to exclude any “illegals” or “without papers”. As for the other chargeable 15%, obviously the old, disabled, seriously ill or disadvantaged are exempt, everybody else has to pay the 15% or take out a health insurance policy to cover it.

Choice of doctor, treatment etc. is very personal, just this morning for example I went to a doctor for consultation (25 euro) and was given a list of the analyses she needed, round the corner to have a blood sample taken for 78 euro. 85% will be reimbursed (a posteriori, I’m not in the French system), the remaining 15% would be reimbursed if I had this separate insurance (I don’t).

Not saying the system is better or worse: advantages and disadvantages, the convenience of immediate attention, but the inconvenience of perhaps having to travel to a laboratory or x-ray clinic. BUT every French citizen has a good idea of just how much first-world health care costs. The UK frequent-flyers who visit their quack every other day perhaps don’t realise (or don’t care?) that it’s hardly a free service, and “I worked all my life and paid my taxes” doesn’t cover it. A friend in the UK has just been “upgraded” from a beta-blocker costing pennies to an ARNI (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor) that has an American patent and will cost the NHS many thousands a year. The immunotherapy drug PEMBROZILUMAB works out at over ten thousand quid PER INJECTION.

The NHS as we know it is unsustainable...

"

Says the guy who lives in France I assume....give me strength

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *coptoCouple
over a year ago

Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth

Yes, post-BREXIT I live in France... I wonder why?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Honestly I don't see the attraction to universal healthcare. Sorry I sound like idiot to some. Not going to mention anything about the NHS comparisons. I guess just as long as I happy with mine no sense in discussing it anymore."

Poor people don't die prematurely. People don't go bankrupt to give their kids life saving medical care. That kind of stuff.

Not sure why it upsets you so much that we have universal healthcare. You'll find it's pretty universally popular and generally considered a positive thing.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

I have noticed a definite swing against the notion of the NHS recently. Increasing numbers of people talking about 'the German model' as some panacea. That said, give me the German version of universal healthcare over the lack of it in the US. It should be remembered we don't have a monopoly on universal healthcare, we just have the best system. But it doesn't matter how good the system is, if you don't have the beds, or the staff, the system can only do so much.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"I have noticed a definite swing against the notion of the NHS recently. Increasing numbers of people talking about 'the German model' as some panacea. That said, give me the German version of universal healthcare over the lack of it in the US. It should be remembered we don't have a monopoly on universal healthcare, we just have the best system. But it doesn't matter how good the system is, if you don't have the beds, or the staff, the system can only do so much. "

It is being run into the ground, some people would say on purpose, in conjunction with brexit. With the purpose of selling chunks of it off to US medical and pharmaceutical corporations.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Honestly I don't see the attraction to universal healthcare. Sorry I sound like idiot to some. Not going to mention anything about the NHS comparisons. I guess just as long as I happy with mine no sense in discussing it anymore.

Poor people don't die prematurely. People don't go bankrupt to give their kids life saving medical care. That kind of stuff.

Not sure why it upsets you so much that we have universal healthcare. You'll find it's pretty universally popular and generally considered a positive thing. "
Like I said I am perfectly happy with my insurance. I have no issues with it. I just do not see the appeal in yours.As long as your happy with the way it operates . Who am I to judge anymore. I love my approach to my healthcare

You love yours. So it's agree to disagree thing.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Honestly I don't see the attraction to universal healthcare. Sorry I sound like idiot to some. Not going to mention anything about the NHS comparisons. I guess just as long as I happy with mine no sense in discussing it anymore.

Poor people don't die prematurely. People don't go bankrupt to give their kids life saving medical care. That kind of stuff.

Not sure why it upsets you so much that we have universal healthcare. You'll find it's pretty universally popular and generally considered a positive thing. Like I said I am perfectly happy with my insurance. I have no issues with it. I just do not see the appeal in yours.As long as your happy with the way it operates . Who am I to judge anymore. I love my approach to my healthcare

You love yours. So it's agree to disagree thing. "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oubleswing2019Man
over a year ago

Colchester


"Yet I see people everyday being a determent to themselves and society because they choose to self inflict and expect everyone else to agree with their choices . How does that justify everyone else paying for that stupidity? "

I believe you are from the US are you not ? And from some of your posts, you're a card-carrying member of the rooting, tooting, gun-loving party, am I correct ?

So I think it's fair to guess you probably own a few, keep them locked in a safe, and take 'em out now and then to go a'hunting, or down the range, yes ?

But accidents happen don't they ?

Things get unlocked...distractions happen, access to those who should't have access is granted. Or one goes off when cleaning and it was chambered. Ooops !

Now you could say, that was self-inflicted. Gross stupidity infact.

But accident's happen.

So I'd like to put some money in the pot to cover you in the event of an accident. It's not for me to judge how it occurred or where the blame lies. I don't give a damn. I just want you to be well and mended.

And all I ask, is that you do the same for me.

I won't judge you, if you don't judge me.

That's the basics of Universal Healthcare.

It matters not what party you support, or your income or anything else. It's just human decency to help each other as part of a collective.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Yet I see people everyday being a determent to themselves and society because they choose to self inflict and expect everyone else to agree with their choices . How does that justify everyone else paying for that stupidity?

I believe you are from the US are you not ? And from some of your posts, you're a card-carrying member of the rooting, tooting, gun-loving party, am I correct ?

So I think it's fair to guess you probably own a few, keep them locked in a safe, and take 'em out now and then to go a'hunting, or down the range, yes ?

But accidents happen don't they ?

Things get unlocked...distractions happen, access to those who should't have access is granted. Or one goes off when cleaning and it was chambered. Ooops !

Now you could say, that was self-inflicted. Gross stupidity infact.

But accident's happen.

So I'd like to put some money in the pot to cover you in the event of an accident. It's not for me to judge how it occurred or where the blame lies. I don't give a damn. I just want you to be well and mended.

And all I ask, is that you do the same for me.

I won't judge you, if you don't judge me.

That's the basics of Universal Healthcare.

It matters not what party you support, or your income or anything else. It's just human decency to help each other as part of a collective.

"
But I have healthcare in the event of a accident.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Because the NHS is free “at the point of service” patients, never seeing an invoice and just making an appointment with their G.P., picking up their prescription drugs from the Pharmacy, calling an ambulance or turning up at A & E, have no idea of the REAL cost of all these services.

Here in France, 85% of these costs are paid for by the State for anybody “in the system”. This already means that there’s a check to exclude any “illegals” or “without papers”. As for the other chargeable 15%, obviously the old, disabled, seriously ill or disadvantaged are exempt, everybody else has to pay the 15% or take out a health insurance policy to cover it.

Choice of doctor, treatment etc. is very personal, just this morning for example I went to a doctor for consultation (25 euro) and was given a list of the analyses she needed, round the corner to have a blood sample taken for 78 euro. 85% will be reimbursed (a posteriori, I’m not in the French system), the remaining 15% would be reimbursed if I had this separate insurance (I don’t).

Not saying the system is better or worse: advantages and disadvantages, the convenience of immediate attention, but the inconvenience of perhaps having to travel to a laboratory or x-ray clinic. BUT every French citizen has a good idea of just how much first-world health care costs. The UK frequent-flyers who visit their quack every other day perhaps don’t realise (or don’t care?) that it’s hardly a free service, and “I worked all my life and paid my taxes” doesn’t cover it. A friend in the UK has just been “upgraded” from a beta-blocker costing pennies to an ARNI (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor) that has an American patent and will cost the NHS many thousands a year. The immunotherapy drug PEMBROZILUMAB works out at over ten thousand quid PER INJECTION.

The NHS as we know it is unsustainable...

"

That's an interesting system but not sure I understand correctly. Are you saying you pay 100% costs up front and then the state automatically refunds 85%. To get the remaining 15% you claim on insurance if you have it?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Yet I see people everyday being a determent to themselves and society because they choose to self inflict and expect everyone else to agree with their choices . How does that justify everyone else paying for that stupidity?

I believe you are from the US are you not ? And from some of your posts, you're a card-carrying member of the rooting, tooting, gun-loving party, am I correct ?

So I think it's fair to guess you probably own a few, keep them locked in a safe, and take 'em out now and then to go a'hunting, or down the range, yes ?

But accidents happen don't they ?

Things get unlocked...distractions happen, access to those who should't have access is granted. Or one goes off when cleaning and it was chambered. Ooops !

Now you could say, that was self-inflicted. Gross stupidity infact.

But accident's happen.

So I'd like to put some money in the pot to cover you in the event of an accident. It's not for me to judge how it occurred or where the blame lies. I don't give a damn. I just want you to be well and mended.

And all I ask, is that you do the same for me.

I won't judge you, if you don't judge me.

That's the basics of Universal Healthcare.

It matters not what party you support, or your income or anything else. It's just human decency to help each other as part of a collective.

"
if you are happy with the way your healthcare is like I stated who am I to judge. I am perfectly happy with mine. I have no issues you state you don't have any issues. It's like beating a dead horse.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Yet I see people everyday being a determent to themselves and society because they choose to self inflict and expect everyone else to agree with their choices . How does that justify everyone else paying for that stupidity?

I believe you are from the US are you not ? And from some of your posts, you're a card-carrying member of the rooting, tooting, gun-loving party, am I correct ?

So I think it's fair to guess you probably own a few, keep them locked in a safe, and take 'em out now and then to go a'hunting, or down the range, yes ?

But accidents happen don't they ?

Things get unlocked...distractions happen, access to those who should't have access is granted. Or one goes off when cleaning and it was chambered. Ooops !

Now you could say, that was self-inflicted. Gross stupidity infact.

But accident's happen.

So I'd like to put some money in the pot to cover you in the event of an accident. It's not for me to judge how it occurred or where the blame lies. I don't give a damn. I just want you to be well and mended.

And all I ask, is that you do the same for me.

I won't judge you, if you don't judge me.

That's the basics of Universal Healthcare.

It matters not what party you support, or your income or anything else. It's just human decency to help each other as part of a collective.

if you are happy with the way your healthcare is like I stated who am I to judge. I am perfectly happy with mine. I have no issues you state you don't have any issues. It's like beating a dead horse."

Although you did start a thread grumbling about it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There should be NO health care.

It's not the job of the government to provide education or health care, that's your job.

The government's job is to keep the country safe from attack and invasion and to guarantee the people's liberty. That's it.

Work, pay low tax and pay for your healthcare.

Never trust the government for health, they don't give a f*k.

Attlee was a twat and social healthcare has been our undoing economically.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Yet I see people everyday being a determent to themselves and society because they choose to self inflict and expect everyone else to agree with their choices . How does that justify everyone else paying for that stupidity?

I believe you are from the US are you not ? And from some of your posts, you're a card-carrying member of the rooting, tooting, gun-loving party, am I correct ?

So I think it's fair to guess you probably own a few, keep them locked in a safe, and take 'em out now and then to go a'hunting, or down the range, yes ?

But accidents happen don't they ?

Things get unlocked...distractions happen, access to those who should't have access is granted. Or one goes off when cleaning and it was chambered. Ooops !

Now you could say, that was self-inflicted. Gross stupidity infact.

But accident's happen.

So I'd like to put some money in the pot to cover you in the event of an accident. It's not for me to judge how it occurred or where the blame lies. I don't give a damn. I just want you to be well and mended.

And all I ask, is that you do the same for me.

I won't judge you, if you don't judge me.

That's the basics of Universal Healthcare.

It matters not what party you support, or your income or anything else. It's just human decency to help each other as part of a collective.

if you are happy with the way your healthcare is like I stated who am I to judge. I am perfectly happy with mine. I have no issues you state you don't have any issues. It's like beating a dead horse.

Although you did start a thread grumbling about it. "
lol I did just observations from work that annoyed me.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"There should be NO health care.

It's not the job of the government to provide education or health care, that's your job.

The government's job is to keep the country safe from attack and invasion and to guarantee the people's liberty. That's it.

Work, pay low tax and pay for your healthcare.

Never trust the government for health, they don't give a f*k.

Attlee was a twat and social healthcare has been our undoing economically. "

I can see why you voted for brexit and think that climate change isn't real.

Fair play to you.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Yet I see people everyday being a determent to themselves and society because they choose to self inflict and expect everyone else to agree with their choices . How does that justify everyone else paying for that stupidity?

I believe you are from the US are you not ? And from some of your posts, you're a card-carrying member of the rooting, tooting, gun-loving party, am I correct ?

So I think it's fair to guess you probably own a few, keep them locked in a safe, and take 'em out now and then to go a'hunting, or down the range, yes ?

But accidents happen don't they ?

Things get unlocked...distractions happen, access to those who should't have access is granted. Or one goes off when cleaning and it was chambered. Ooops !

Now you could say, that was self-inflicted. Gross stupidity infact.

But accident's happen.

So I'd like to put some money in the pot to cover you in the event of an accident. It's not for me to judge how it occurred or where the blame lies. I don't give a damn. I just want you to be well and mended.

And all I ask, is that you do the same for me.

I won't judge you, if you don't judge me.

That's the basics of Universal Healthcare.

It matters not what party you support, or your income or anything else. It's just human decency to help each other as part of a collective.

if you are happy with the way your healthcare is like I stated who am I to judge. I am perfectly happy with mine. I have no issues you state you don't have any issues. It's like beating a dead horse.

Although you did start a thread grumbling about it. lol I did just observations from work that annoyed me."

I'm just poking fun. It's an interesting topic.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Yet I see people everyday being a determent to themselves and society because they choose to self inflict and expect everyone else to agree with their choices . How does that justify everyone else paying for that stupidity?

I believe you are from the US are you not ? And from some of your posts, you're a card-carrying member of the rooting, tooting, gun-loving party, am I correct ?

So I think it's fair to guess you probably own a few, keep them locked in a safe, and take 'em out now and then to go a'hunting, or down the range, yes ?

But accidents happen don't they ?

Things get unlocked...distractions happen, access to those who should't have access is granted. Or one goes off when cleaning and it was chambered. Ooops !

Now you could say, that was self-inflicted. Gross stupidity infact.

But accident's happen.

So I'd like to put some money in the pot to cover you in the event of an accident. It's not for me to judge how it occurred or where the blame lies. I don't give a damn. I just want you to be well and mended.

And all I ask, is that you do the same for me.

I won't judge you, if you don't judge me.

That's the basics of Universal Healthcare.

It matters not what party you support, or your income or anything else. It's just human decency to help each other as part of a collective.

if you are happy with the way your healthcare is like I stated who am I to judge. I am perfectly happy with mine. I have no issues you state you don't have any issues. It's like beating a dead horse.

Although you did start a thread grumbling about it. lol I did just observations from work that annoyed me.

I'm just poking fun. It's an interesting topic. "
it was.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves. "

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it?"
No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?"

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this?"
does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't."
I am proud of my accomplishments.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Iike I said for the umpteenth time . I love mine. Just like you love yours. I have everything I need for every situation. Data or not.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't."

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *coptoCouple
over a year ago

Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth

"That's an interesting system but not sure I understand correctly. Are you saying you pay 100% costs up front and then the state automatically refunds 85%. To get the remaining 15% you claim on insurance if you have it?"

When a French patient goes into a Pharmacy, clinic etc. they show their credit-card like "Carte Vitale" which proves they're in the system (no "illegals", then). The 85% owed to the doctor/clinic/ambulance what have you is paid to the Doctor directly by the State, the other 15% claimed from the patient's "mutuel" insurance. In practice, just like the UK patient who goes to the quack then goes to Boots for his medicines, no cash is handed over. Lots of paperwork for Doctors (well, computer input, obviously), a G.P. is expected to see 40 patients a day and all this administrative blah blah IS a bone of contention with them.

Personally, I have private health insurance from my employer, but I'm only reimbursed at 85%. I could join the French system and get 85% from them, but I'd still have to get a separate "mutuel" insurance to cover the difference. For the moment it's more economical for me to "swallow" the shortfall.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise."
Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

If the UK paid healthcare professionals the same as here I will gladly accept a offer there. It's not rocket science. Standard of living is just as important as Healthcare for a medical professional.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

So in conclusion like I said if you happy with your healthcare. I am happy for you and I am happy with mine. Debating all day is not going to solve anything. So enjoy your standards and I will enjoy mine.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"So in conclusion like I said if you happy with your healthcare. I am happy for you and I am happy with mine. Debating all day is not going to solve anything. So enjoy your standards and I will enjoy mine. "

Maybe don’t keep asking the same question in different ways across multiple threads all the time then Blu?

We get it that you are happy. The majority of us this side of the pond do not agree with you. Most of the time your posts on this topic come across as “I’m alright Jack fuck everyone else”. Many of us do not agree with that sentiment but you are if course fully entitled to hold that view.

Be well. Be happy

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"From a cold financial point of view .

In the U.K an average family (two plus two kids) pays in tax towards their healthcare the same as an individual to cover just that individual in the US.

So 4-1 cheaper on costs .

Add to that if you can’t pay it’s ok you’re covered in the UK and I’m afraid it’s a financial no brainier.

The NHS needs administration reform to modernise and afford better services as an ongoing priority but from a both moral and financial point of view it is a far better system than the US has in place.

There is no argument to be had if you care about society or indeed just about your wallet. The medical related companies in the US are not doing anyone favours. it’s very profitable.

Free market doctrine is in this instance no match for reality and simple facts .

Most countries aspire to a universal healthcare system. Strange how some individuals still resist. Yes they see the benefits of roads and education and a fire service or perhaps they’re police. They may not use the police but would be unhappy if the police didn’t bother catching a local murderer on the loose. It’s ok he hasn’t murdered anyone I know yet so we’re good thanks.

Americans are rightly proud of their armed forces but where does the cash come from? It’s taxes and whilst the soldiers may not stand directly in front of your house to defend it would you not want them to exist?

To deny relationships in society is just nonsense.

The VA is the closest system resembling the NHS. I have it through my husband's retirement. We don't use it we prefer the group insurance from my employer because the quality of service wait times and red tape you have to jump through is ridiculous. The government can't get that system right let alone on a national level. I love my group insurance I have no issues with it. If I call my PCP. I usually seen in a day. I not trying to sell private insurance. I just giving facts on my personal experiences. I'd rather be self reliant with my choices. By all means if you feel the NHS is much better because of no costs and you happy with the quality. I see your points."

See here is the thing…. And this is from someone who has experienced both systems

You have the NHS… but if you are not happy with that you can get private insurance Like BUPA

Now… it time for story time with Fabio… two different examples

I basically almost died 6 years ago… I was walking around with ‘walking pneumonia’ .. I thought it was just a cough that until I rolled out of bed one Saturday morning when my body just gave up because it also caused fluid on my lungs to the point I couldn’t breathe much anymore

Sidenote.. you know those blood oxygen sensors they put on your finger… well the normal score is 98-100…. At that point I managed to get a score of 27! They changed the machine 3 times because they thought it was faulty!

So… rushed me into a bed… they said if I had come in 6 hrs later I probably would have been rushed into an ICU… emergency surgery relieved my lungs of nearly 3 pints of fluid while I was in hospital

And I was in hospital for 3 weeks…….

So….. how much would that have been? The nhs was nothing but the taxes I paid

I’d not even like to imagine what that would have cost in the states

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

But let’s not use something that extreme.. let’s use something much more common…

Pregnancy and the birth of a child…

How much would that cost in the uk… nothing

How much in the US …. Average is 10k… can go up to 30k

Not to go all ‘Bernie sanders’ … but the irony is US people would pay less overall if under a socialised health system, they you would pay in co-pays

P.s…. Epi pens… 150 each… an inhaler… 600 dollars for 2!!!!

Ambulance…. Up to 2 grand

And I can guarantee you that uk people have either fallen on the floor or have not shut their mouths whilst reading this!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"But let’s not use something that extreme.. let’s use something much more common…

Pregnancy and the birth of a child…

How much would that cost in the uk… nothing

How much in the US …. Average is 10k… can go up to 30k

Not to go all ‘Bernie sanders’ … but the irony is US people would pay less overall if under a socialised health system, they you would pay in co-pays

P.s…. Epi pens… 150 each… an inhaler… 600 dollars for 2!!!!

Ambulance…. Up to 2 grand

And I can guarantee you that uk people have either fallen on the floor or have not shut their mouths whilst reading this!"

I've heard the horror stories. And the lack of maternity leave in some states is staggering.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"But let’s not use something that extreme.. let’s use something much more common…

Pregnancy and the birth of a child…

How much would that cost in the uk… nothing

How much in the US …. Average is 10k… can go up to 30k

Not to go all ‘Bernie sanders’ … but the irony is US people would pay less overall if under a socialised health system, they you would pay in co-pays

P.s…. Epi pens… 150 each… an inhaler… 600 dollars for 2!!!!

Ambulance…. Up to 2 grand

And I can guarantee you that uk people have either fallen on the floor or have not shut their mouths whilst reading this!"

As I posted higher up. The number of people in the UK who are bankrupted each year due to medical bills = zero!

The number each year in the USA = 643,000

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?"

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport


"But let’s not use something that extreme.. let’s use something much more common…

Pregnancy and the birth of a child…

How much would that cost in the uk… nothing

How much in the US …. Average is 10k… can go up to 30k

Not to go all ‘Bernie sanders’ … but the irony is US people would pay less overall if under a socialised health system, they you would pay in co-pays

P.s…. Epi pens… 150 each… an inhaler… 600 dollars for 2!!!!

Ambulance…. Up to 2 grand

And I can guarantee you that uk people have either fallen on the floor or have not shut their mouths whilst reading this!

As I posted higher up. The number of people in the UK who are bankrupted each year due to medical bills = zero!

The number each year in the USA = 643,000"

But I can't see why those 643,000 can complain. Isn't the American system all about choice, they chose bankruptcy by not choosing to be correctly insured.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"But let’s not use something that extreme.. let’s use something much more common…

Pregnancy and the birth of a child…

How much would that cost in the uk… nothing

How much in the US …. Average is 10k… can go up to 30k

Not to go all ‘Bernie sanders’ … but the irony is US people would pay less overall if under a socialised health system, they you would pay in co-pays

P.s…. Epi pens… 150 each… an inhaler… 600 dollars for 2!!!!

Ambulance…. Up to 2 grand

And I can guarantee you that uk people have either fallen on the floor or have not shut their mouths whilst reading this!

As I posted higher up. The number of people in the UK who are bankrupted each year due to medical bills = zero!

The number each year in the USA = 643,000

But I can't see why those 643,000 can complain. Isn't the American system all about choice, they chose bankruptcy by not choosing to be correctly insured. "

The choice to not be poor or to not fall sick or to not be involved in an accident is a valid one that we do not exercise anything like enough in the UK...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough."
and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

"
Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government."

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

"

You were talking about earning more money in your job and living the life you enjoy. Nothing to do with medical treatment.

You'd have even more money if you didn't pay for medical insurance.

No replies to direct questions still, I see.

"We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?"

Better than having to plan, surely?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government."

Bad Government decisions are the same as bad private company decisions.

It's perfectly possible to run a state funded health system on what the UK is spending, but we are doing a crap job of it.

It is also clearly possible to run an insurance based health system significantly more cheaply than the US one with better medical outcomes so you have been doing a crap job regardless of company.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. "
so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There is no universal healthcare in the UK.

Everyone in theory has access to "Our NHS", which in reality means getting no healthcare for months, and when you get to the front of the queue you will get the same mediocre "care" as everyone else, unless you don't qualify for any treatment due to the rationing.

Anyone who can afford to pay privately or is insured can get decent healthcare pretty much immediately. In that respect it's really no different to the US, aside from the treatment in the UK probably isn't as good even in the private sector.

The NHS is a self serving scam, run for the benefit of its employees.

Politicians and the media have convinced the masses over decades that this healthcare system, which is somewhere between mediocre and terrible, is somehow the "best in the world", and the masses are dumb enough to believe it because most of them haven't got a clue what the rest of the world is like beyond an annual holiday trip to Europe and whatever bread and circuses they are fed by the MSM.

It's what happens when a health system is run for ideological reasons and not with patient care as the primary focus.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses. "

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them."
That on them once again.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again. "

Poor people being poor is "on them"?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? "
Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them. "

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic. "
lol still going to be patriotic even if it doesn't sound like it to you.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic. lol still going to be patriotic even if it doesn't sound like it to you."

Your healthcare for poor people is costing you more than for all other industrialised countries with worst outcomes.

What's good about that?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic. lol still going to be patriotic even if it doesn't sound like it to you.

Your healthcare for poor people is costing you more than for all other industrialised countries with worst outcomes.

What's good about that?"
is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic. lol still going to be patriotic even if it doesn't sound like it to you.

Your healthcare for poor people is costing you more than for all other industrialised countries with worst outcomes.

What's good about that?"

Which is why the Republicans want to scrap Medicare altogether.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic. lol still going to be patriotic even if it doesn't sound like it to you."

Fair enough, just seems strange to love your country, but not give a fuck about your fellow countrymen and women.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic. lol still going to be patriotic even if it doesn't sound like it to you.

Your healthcare for poor people is costing you more than for all other industrialised countries with worst outcomes.

What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population."

Ah, you are confused about what per person per year means.

That's what costs more and is comparable to other countries, not the total which is obviously higher.

Has that helped?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic. lol still going to be patriotic even if it doesn't sound like it to you.

Your healthcare for poor people is costing you more than for all other industrialised countries with worst outcomes.

What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

Ah, you are confused about what per person per year means.

That's what costs more and is comparable to other countries, not the total which is obviously higher.

Has that helped?"
Are our healthcare workers getting higher salaries? It's simple economics don't you think?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic. lol still going to be patriotic even if it doesn't sound like it to you.

Your healthcare for poor people is costing you more than for all other industrialised countries with worst outcomes.

What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

Ah, you are confused about what per person per year means.

That's what costs more and is comparable to other countries, not the total which is obviously higher.

Has that helped? Are our healthcare workers getting higher salaries? It's simple economics don't you think?"
If you fine not having healthcare professional retention. That's your choice. They coming here with our shitty healthcare.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic. lol still going to be patriotic even if it doesn't sound like it to you.

Your healthcare for poor people is costing you more than for all other industrialised countries with worst outcomes.

What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

Ah, you are confused about what per person per year means.

That's what costs more and is comparable to other countries, not the total which is obviously higher.

Has that helped? Are our healthcare workers getting higher salaries? It's simple economics don't you think? If you fine not having healthcare professional retention. That's your choice. They coming here with our shitty healthcare."

You're absolutely right. We aren't paying our healthcare staff enough. Mainly because our Government treat state employees like your Republicans do.

However, according to the OECD, compared to the cost of living (pre-pandemic at least) US medical staff are paid about 20% more than in the UK. They also have to pay (ironically) for medical insurance. 10 days annual leave compared to 27. Let's say 20 vs 35 including public holidays. Then there's that socialist maternity leave...

Certainly doesn't account for the discrepancy in cost, does it?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic. lol still going to be patriotic even if it doesn't sound like it to you.

Your healthcare for poor people is costing you more than for all other industrialised countries with worst outcomes.

What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

Ah, you are confused about what per person per year means.

That's what costs more and is comparable to other countries, not the total which is obviously higher.

Has that helped? Are our healthcare workers getting higher salaries? It's simple economics don't you think? If you fine not having healthcare professional retention. That's your choice. They coming here with our shitty healthcare.

You're absolutely right. We aren't paying our healthcare staff enough. Mainly because our Government treat state employees like your Republicans do.

However, according to the OECD, compared to the cost of living (pre-pandemic at least) US medical staff are paid about 20% more than in the UK. They also have to pay (ironically) for medical insurance. 10 days annual leave compared to 27. Let's say 20 vs 35 including public holidays. Then there's that socialist maternity leave...

Certainly doesn't account for the discrepancy in cost, does it?"
Then why are your doctors and other medical professionals coming here? If everything you point out is so great? I have a lot in my hospital with visas. They not complaining. Like I said I have no issues with my coverage. I do not like yours and you do not like mine. We are at a impasse now are we not. Two different mindsets. Thanks for your input much appreciated ??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I guess the differences are I hold myself responsible for my well being to a more certain extent. It might be a determent in some people's eyes. It got me this far living the I want to I achieved what I set out to do. Maybe it is a fault of mine ... But I do not see it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"I guess the differences are I hold myself responsible for my well being to a more certain extent. It might be a determent in some people's eyes. It got me this far living the I want to I achieved what I set out to do. Maybe it is a fault of mine ... But I do not see it."

It's not about you, if you have the money for private healthcare, thats your business. It's about the millions over there who can't afford it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley

Cough, which countries population pays for patrolling the world oceans parroting human rights.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Cough, which countries population pays for patrolling the world oceans parroting human rights.

"
I all for American isolationism but that for another thread.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

Because of the money sloshing around healthcare in the states, the starting salaries for doctors is far greater than it is over here. Not really surprising some would emigrate to the States to cash in, especially given the mismanagement of the NHS. Staff retention is a serious issue in our health system and more generally. Yet we still have a higher life expectancy on average because there isn't the inequality in care.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I see the concept of it there. But I also see here people taking advantage of healthcare to suit their needs. Wheres do you draw the line on what should be standard healthcare and what shouldn't?

The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world amongst developed nations, but returning lower than average outcomes.

From the (UK) Office of Budget Responsibility 2019:

"However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest (£2,989), with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

"In 2017, the UK spent the equivalent of £53 per person on healthcare governance and the costs associated with financing healthcare. This was below the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The relatively low UK spending on governance and financing costs is partly down to the type of health system the UK operates. The NHS and other tax-based healthcare systems do not tend to have the financing costs typically incurred in health insurance schemes, such as revenues collection (the equivalent of which would be managed centrally in tax-based systems), risk-management, and profits in the case of mandatory private health insurance schemes.

Spending on governance and financing is highest in the United States, the equivalent of £639 per person. This is three times as much as the second-highest spender and 12 times the amount spent in the UK."

"Taking an international perspective, average life expectancy tends to be longer in countries that spend more on healthcare, with the notable exception being the United States. However, while the association between more expenditure on healthcare and longer life expectancy is observable for countries that spent less than £2,500 per person on healthcare, it is harder to discern an association between these factors for higher-spending countries"

US life expectancy is 78.6 for £7,736/yr

UK life expectancy is 81.3 for £2,989/yr

So, as badly run as the NHS is currently, it is very hard to argue that the US system is better, wouldn't you say? yes at better life expectancy. You would agree that we are a obese nation compared to the UK of course our life expectancy is going to be lower.I see everyday people screaming about paying a dollar for prescription. Yet at the drive thru their car is full of fast food cups and wrappers and the major of the time they on state assistance. So where do you draw the line? It's not just a casual occurrence either. So imagine free healthcare for all here. Hospitals would be inundated. All for free healthcare then if people don't abuse the system. But they do in droves.

You think that free healthcare is good for veterans though. So why not good for everyone.

There are certainly a significant number of obese veterans, are there not? Self inflicted? Why do they get a pass? It's very possible that they never saw combat, never took a risk for your country, correct?

I have shown you the data on how poor the value for money of your system is, so what is it you like about it? No I believe in them getting the help they need from combat related injuries. Hence why I use my private health care. Like I said I am happy with "MY" health-care. Your DATA does not apply to me now does it?

You choose not to, but 'undeserving' veterans and their families could also have that medical care, couldn't they?

So, to be clear you are happy with the most financially inefficient healthcare system in the world? The data does apply to your country, which you are proud of.

Are you proud of this? does your data apply to me ? It doesn't.

The data does apply to you because you pay more for your healthcare than people here do.

Your country has less efficient healthcare than anywhere else in the world. As you are a citizen of the USA that does apply to you. It is your country, right, or are only certain aspects of it yours?

Is financially inefficient service a matter of national pride?

What do you "love" about your healthcare system compared to the one here?

Is it that medical companies warn more profits to give to shareholders?

Do you feel better about yourself because other people are unable to obtain the same quality of care as you?

I am guessing because you don't seem willing or able to answer.

I'm interested to know why it is "better" despite the data indicating otherwise. Yes I have a higher out of pocket expense. But also in my profession I make 4 times plus bonuses compared to my UK counterparts. I can cover the costs easily and still live the life I enjoy. I chose different aspects of my policy like long term and short term disability eye dental HSA. I am not dictated by the government that sets salaries now am I? Simple I like my standard of living. Something happens there are triggers in place. Because I plan I am a villain ?

You are not talking about your job, and your standard of living not about medical care.

Lots of people who require medical care don't actually work in the medical industry.

We don't have to plan to fall ill or have an accident.

Isn't that a good thing?

In general, I guess you don't like addressing direct questions despite often claiming how upfront and clear you are about everything.

So, enough. and lots of people have the same insurance as me not working in the medical field. They choose what coverage they want. If they plan correctly there should be no issues.They plan accordingly the benefitted. Simple isn't it? Thas a good thing they are responsible for their well being. Not the government.

Unless I am really that stupid the NHS is failing because of government. Bad government decisions. Tell me I am wrong? Torries or labour it's still the government.

The conservative party has been in government for 12 years.

The NHS is struggling, but not failing yet. so who is to blame? In your scenario it's the government. My failure would be mine if I failed or struggled. Not the masses.

It's more complex than "who's to blame".

If your insurance company fails, I'm not sure how that can be your fault.

I think the main concern here, is the people over there who don't have the money for insurance. It creates inequality. Sure, maybe you can afford insurance. But millions of your fellow Americans are fucked if anything happens to them. That on them once again.

Poor people being poor is "on them"? Yes why is it my concern? You have poor people there going to food banks. With your healthcare do you not? I don't see you championing them.

Yes, we have social security and healthcare for poor people.

You don't care about the health and wellbeing of your fellow Americans? Doesn't sound very patriotic. lol still going to be patriotic even if it doesn't sound like it to you.

Your healthcare for poor people is costing you more than for all other industrialised countries with worst outcomes.

What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

Ah, you are confused about what per person per year means.

That's what costs more and is comparable to other countries, not the total which is obviously higher.

Has that helped? Are our healthcare workers getting higher salaries? It's simple economics don't you think? If you fine not having healthcare professional retention. That's your choice. They coming here with our shitty healthcare.

You're absolutely right. We aren't paying our healthcare staff enough. Mainly because our Government treat state employees like your Republicans do.

However, according to the OECD, compared to the cost of living (pre-pandemic at least) US medical staff are paid about 20% more than in the UK. They also have to pay (ironically) for medical insurance. 10 days annual leave compared to 27. Let's say 20 vs 35 including public holidays. Then there's that socialist maternity leave...

Certainly doesn't account for the discrepancy in cost, does it? Then why are your doctors and other medical professionals coming here? If everything you point out is so great? I have a lot in my hospital with visas. They not complaining. Like I said I have no issues with my coverage. I do not like yours and you do not like mine. We are at a impasse now are we not. Two different mindsets. Thanks for your input much appreciated ??"

It's not "so great". They are underpaid and overworked.

The figures are what they are. Holidays, maternity leave, medical insurance, sick days.

The average loss of NHS staff is about 2% per year globally. I'm sure that figure's higher now.

Perhaps you just notice the British accents more?

Whatever the pay, your system is financially inefficient, provides worse care for the majority of your population and puts people in debt. It's also, apparently, the fault of the poor for being poor.

You're proud of that.

Fair enough.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Cough, which countries population pays for patrolling the world oceans parroting human rights.

I all for American isolationism but that for another thread."

Ukraine is an "isolationist" policy?

I happen to agree with the policy towards Ukrainian military aid, but it is not isolationist in any way, is it?

The same with the banning of chip sales to China.

Just take some time to understand what is actually happening before making things up.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham


"Cough, which countries population pays for patrolling the world oceans parroting human rights.

I all for American isolationism but that for another thread.

Ukraine is an "isolationist" policy?

I happen to agree with the policy towards Ukrainian military aid, but it is not isolationist in any way, is it?

The same with the banning of chip sales to China.

Just take some time to understand what is actually happening before making things up."

Explain sensai

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Cough, which countries population pays for patrolling the world oceans parroting human rights.

I all for American isolationism but that for another thread.

Ukraine is an "isolationist" policy?

I happen to agree with the policy towards Ukrainian military aid, but it is not isolationist in any way, is it?

The same with the banning of chip sales to China.

Just take some time to understand what is actually happening before making things up."
it's not ? Prior to the bombing of pearl. We were isolationist not interventionalists. In 1940 UK aka Great Britain received the lend lease program from the US. The same that Ukraine getting. The only reason why our military is there is a commitment to defend NATO. Facts. We don't need to be there technically. Europe has always been a thorn in our side. Everyone screams about our healthcare system. Yet nothing said about the defense budget. That's a lot of money protecting foreign interests. Where it can be better spent on social programs here. England was once the powerhouse of all military for a long time. Please take that mantle back. Be the exceptional ones again

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Cough, which countries population pays for patrolling the world oceans parroting human rights.

I all for American isolationism but that for another thread.

Ukraine is an "isolationist" policy?

I happen to agree with the policy towards Ukrainian military aid, but it is not isolationist in any way, is it?

The same with the banning of chip sales to China.

Just take some time to understand what is actually happening before making things up. it's not ? Prior to the bombing of pearl. We were isolationist not interventionalists. In 1940 UK aka Great Britain received the lend lease program from the US. The same that Ukraine getting. The only reason why our military is there is a commitment to defend NATO. Facts. We don't need to be there technically. Europe has always been a thorn in our side. Everyone screams about our healthcare system. Yet nothing said about the defense budget. That's a lot of money protecting foreign interests. Where it can be better spent on social programs here. England was once the powerhouse of all military for a long time. Please take that mantle back. Be the exceptional ones again

"
I all for rule Britannia. Be so inclined. Brexit was a isolationism policy anyways

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


" The only reason why our military is there is a commitment to defend NATO. Facts.

"

The only reason your military does anything is for $$$.


"

Everyone screams about our healthcare system. Yet nothing said about the defense budget. That's a lot of money protecting foreign interests.

"

There is a lot of discussion about how much public money is given to arms manufacturers. Especially in the US.

Who is "screaming" why do you always say this when referring to written comments?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


" The only reason why our military is there is a commitment to defend NATO. Facts.

The only reason your military does anything is for $$$.

Everyone screams about our healthcare system. Yet nothing said about the defense budget. That's a lot of money protecting foreign interests.

There is a lot of discussion about how much public money is given to arms manufacturers. Especially in the US.

Who is "screaming" why do you always say this when referring to written comments?"

The money is given for technology to export. Do we need to project power anymore? No. More devastating and lucrative wars were fought in Europe we can just sit back and watch. Everyone hates our way of life anyways. It will be a good time. A royal rumble of sorts.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

So back to healthcare. Enjoy yours I will enjoy mine. I do not see the positives of yours over mine I just see doom .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population."

And this is where I jump back in and scream “flag on the plane”

The us healthcare system by economists is known as “the most expensive least efficient healthcare system in the world “

Why is it that the us pay more for drugs than any else… because most countries use the fact they are treating people in bulk to drive drug costs down… economies of scale

The us government make it illegal for the VA, Medicare and Medicaid to do this (which makes zero sense as the argument is they are competing with private insurers and hospitals)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"So back to healthcare. Enjoy yours I will enjoy mine. I do not see the positives of yours over mine I just see doom .

"

Why is providing healthcare for everyone "doom"?

What are the advantages of not providing healthcare to poor people, and bankruptcy for anyone without insurance?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

And this is where I jump back in and scream “flag on the plane”

The us healthcare system by economists is known as “the most expensive least efficient healthcare system in the world “

Why is it that the us pay more for drugs than any else… because most countries use the fact they are treating people in bulk to drive drug costs down… economies of scale

The us government make it illegal for the VA, Medicare and Medicaid to do this (which makes zero sense as the argument is they are competing with private insurers and hospitals) "
Bingo nail on the head the VA. It's a form of "Free healthcare" . But politics get in the way. Just like the torries just like any form of government intervention. The healthcare is electable. I just choose different.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

And this is where I jump back in and scream “flag on the plane”

The us healthcare system by economists is known as “the most expensive least efficient healthcare system in the world “

Why is it that the us pay more for drugs than any else… because most countries use the fact they are treating people in bulk to drive drug costs down… economies of scale

The us government make it illegal for the VA, Medicare and Medicaid to do this (which makes zero sense as the argument is they are competing with private insurers and hospitals) Bingo nail on the head the VA. It's a form of "Free healthcare" . But politics get in the way. Just like the torries just like any form of government intervention. The healthcare is electable. I just choose different. "
I control my budget not a political party to decide.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

And this is where I jump back in and scream “flag on the plane”

The us healthcare system by economists is known as “the most expensive least efficient healthcare system in the world “

Why is it that the us pay more for drugs than any else… because most countries use the fact they are treating people in bulk to drive drug costs down… economies of scale

The us government make it illegal for the VA, Medicare and Medicaid to do this (which makes zero sense as the argument is they are competing with private insurers and hospitals) Bingo nail on the head the VA. It's a form of "Free healthcare" . But politics get in the way. Just like the torries just like any form of government intervention. The healthcare is electable. I just choose different. I control my budget not a political party to decide."
if shareholders disagree I can't just switch. I don't need to wait for the next election cycle. How long has the torries been in charge ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Can *

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

And this is where I jump back in and scream “flag on the plane”

The us healthcare system by economists is known as “the most expensive least efficient healthcare system in the world “

Why is it that the us pay more for drugs than any else… because most countries use the fact they are treating people in bulk to drive drug costs down… economies of scale

The us government make it illegal for the VA, Medicare and Medicaid to do this (which makes zero sense as the argument is they are competing with private insurers and hospitals) Bingo nail on the head the VA. It's a form of "Free healthcare" . But politics get in the way. Just like the torries just like any form of government intervention. The healthcare is electable. I just choose different. I control my budget not a political party to decide."

Just as a note, Private health care is available here too.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

Your choice depends upon the freedom to choose. What happens if someone who has excellent medical insurance through their workplace but becomes ill and loses their job. What happens? And that's to say nothing for the many who can't afford it anyway.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

And this is where I jump back in and scream “flag on the plane”

The us healthcare system by economists is known as “the most expensive least efficient healthcare system in the world “

Why is it that the us pay more for drugs than any else… because most countries use the fact they are treating people in bulk to drive drug costs down… economies of scale

The us government make it illegal for the VA, Medicare and Medicaid to do this (which makes zero sense as the argument is they are competing with private insurers and hospitals) Bingo nail on the head the VA. It's a form of "Free healthcare" . But politics get in the way. Just like the torries just like any form of government intervention. The healthcare is electable. I just choose different. I control my budget not a political party to decide."

Our individual budgets for healthcare is £0.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Your choice depends upon the freedom to choose. What happens if someone who has excellent medical insurance through their workplace but becomes ill and loses their job. What happens? And that's to say nothing for the many who can't afford it anyway. "
They should have chosen a better policy.i have long term and short term disability. In the event something happens on top of the disability benefits I paid into social security. Being disabled.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

And this is where I jump back in and scream “flag on the plane”

The us healthcare system by economists is known as “the most expensive least efficient healthcare system in the world “

Why is it that the us pay more for drugs than any else… because most countries use the fact they are treating people in bulk to drive drug costs down… economies of scale

The us government make it illegal for the VA, Medicare and Medicaid to do this (which makes zero sense as the argument is they are competing with private insurers and hospitals) Bingo nail on the head the VA. It's a form of "Free healthcare" . But politics get in the way. Just like the torries just like any form of government intervention. The healthcare is electable. I just choose different. I control my budget not a political party to decide.

Our individual budgets for healthcare is £0.

"
You paying taxes on it I get tax

returns on mine. Which with that return I dump into my HSA for future emergencies and it collects interest. I can use that if I need feminine products or anything health related. If I didn't have the money to spend. Otherwise it sits there until needed.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I don't have children. I can't claim 3000 per child in a return and get 3000 per child. Family of 4 gets a extra 6000k a year. Do they invest? Majority do not. There is exceptions. I invest in myself and I supposed to care about others ignorance. No way.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

If anyone wants to come check out the local low income housing. Let us know you would be shocked. Bmws vettes hellcats galor I'll give you a tour.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Cough, which countries population pays for patrolling the world oceans parroting human rights.

I all for American isolationism but that for another thread.

Ukraine is an "isolationist" policy?

I happen to agree with the policy towards Ukrainian military aid, but it is not isolationist in any way, is it?

The same with the banning of chip sales to China.

Just take some time to understand what is actually happening before making things up. it's not ? Prior to the bombing of pearl. We were isolationist not interventionalists. In 1940 UK aka Great Britain received the lend lease program from the US. The same that Ukraine getting. The only reason why our military is there is a commitment to defend NATO. Facts. We don't need to be there technically. Europe has always been a thorn in our side. Everyone screams about our healthcare system. Yet nothing said about the defense budget. That's a lot of money protecting foreign interests. Where it can be better spent on social programs here. England was once the powerhouse of all military for a long time. Please take that mantle back. Be the exceptional ones again

"

None of this has anything to do with what is happening now.

Ukraine is not in NATO. You don't need to be funding their defence not do you need to be starving China of advanced microchips. You are though. That is not isolationist. By definition.

Nobody is "screaming" about anything. That is rather melodramatic. It's just a bit sad that such a wealthy country doesn't care for its own.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Cough, which countries population pays for patrolling the world oceans parroting human rights.

I all for American isolationism but that for another thread.

Ukraine is an "isolationist" policy?

I happen to agree with the policy towards Ukrainian military aid, but it is not isolationist in any way, is it?

The same with the banning of chip sales to China.

Just take some time to understand what is actually happening before making things up. it's not ? Prior to the bombing of pearl. We were isolationist not interventionalists. In 1940 UK aka Great Britain received the lend lease program from the US. The same that Ukraine getting. The only reason why our military is there is a commitment to defend NATO. Facts. We don't need to be there technically. Europe has always been a thorn in our side. Everyone screams about our healthcare system. Yet nothing said about the defense budget. That's a lot of money protecting foreign interests. Where it can be better spent on social programs here. England was once the powerhouse of all military for a long time. Please take that mantle back. Be the exceptional ones again

I all for rule Britannia. Be so inclined. Brexit was a isolationism policy anyways "

Allegedly it was the opposite. Global Britain etc.

I think that it was stupid, but we are where we are.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

And this is where I jump back in and scream “flag on the plane”

The us healthcare system by economists is known as “the most expensive least efficient healthcare system in the world “

Why is it that the us pay more for drugs than any else… because most countries use the fact they are treating people in bulk to drive drug costs down… economies of scale

The us government make it illegal for the VA, Medicare and Medicaid to do this (which makes zero sense as the argument is they are competing with private insurers and hospitals) Bingo nail on the head the VA. It's a form of "Free healthcare" . But politics get in the way. Just like the torries just like any form of government intervention. The healthcare is electable. I just choose different. I control my budget not a political party to decide.

Our individual budgets for healthcare is £0.

You paying taxes on it I get tax

returns on mine. Which with that return I dump into my HSA for future emergencies and it collects interest. I can use that if I need feminine products or anything health related. If I didn't have the money to spend. Otherwise it sits there until needed."

Except you still pay out more in medical insurance, plus excess, than we do in tax for healthcare.

A tax rebate does not cover your premium, does it?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"What's good about that? is it my healthcare? No it's not. Of course it cost more bigger population.

And this is where I jump back in and scream “flag on the plane”

The us healthcare system by economists is known as “the most expensive least efficient healthcare system in the world “

Why is it that the us pay more for drugs than any else… because most countries use the fact they are treating people in bulk to drive drug costs down… economies of scale

The us government make it illegal for the VA, Medicare and Medicaid to do this (which makes zero sense as the argument is they are competing with private insurers and hospitals) Bingo nail on the head the VA. It's a form of "Free healthcare" . But politics get in the way. Just like the torries just like any form of government intervention. The healthcare is electable. I just choose different. I control my budget not a political party to decide.

Our individual budgets for healthcare is £0.

You paying taxes on it I get tax

returns on mine. Which with that return I dump into my HSA for future emergencies and it collects interest. I can use that if I need feminine products or anything health related. If I didn't have the money to spend. Otherwise it sits there until needed."

Indeed anyway, no one here needs any budget for healthcare. It's provided to everyone, rich and poor.

I think it comes down to the simple concept of empathy.

By and large, people here want our fellow citizens to have access to healthcare. You said you don't care about your fellow citizens.

I think that's just it?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps something like the German model would be better. Pay a small fee out of your salary for access to it, and forbid people who don't pay anything more than basic care.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Perhaps something like the German model would be better. Pay a small fee out of your salary for access to it, and forbid people who don't pay anything more than basic care."
That's basic Obama care here.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Perhaps something like the German model would be better. Pay a small fee out of your salary for access to it, and forbid people who don't pay anything more than basic care."

Germany just has a hypothecated tax. The contributions by employers and employees are paid directly into the healthcare system rather than out of general taxation. The amount varies depending on income. The majority of healthcare is not for profit.

So, overall the system is not that different except that funding is largely politics free and predictable into the long-term.

This certainly does seem to have merit.

It is more basic if you have not paid in, although this seems to be a very small number. There is "luxury" private insurance if you pay more.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Perhaps something like the German model would be better. Pay a small fee out of your salary for access to it, and forbid people who don't pay anything more than basic care. That's basic Obama care here. "

Republicans were strongly opposed to this I believe.

They were threatening to repeal it until just before the last election. Surely you would support the repeal of the Affordable Care Act as it means that you have to pay a bit more tax to help those less fortunate than you.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The cost has not decreased for everyone. Those who do not qualify for subsidies may find marketplace health insurance plans unaffordable. ...

Loss of company-sponsored health plans. ...

Tax penalties. ...

Shrinking networks. ...

Shopping for coverage can be complicated.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The cost has not decreased for everyone. Those who do not qualify for subsidies may find marketplace health insurance plans unaffordable. ...

Loss of company-sponsored health plans. ...

Tax penalties. ...

Shrinking networks. ...

Shopping for coverage can be complicated."
you fine with the reappeal with those standpoints?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"The cost has not decreased for everyone. Those who do not qualify for subsidies may find marketplace health insurance plans unaffordable. ...

Loss of company-sponsored health plans. ...

Tax penalties. ...

Shrinking networks. ...

Shopping for coverage can be complicated."

It's not complicated here.

Nor is finding private health insurance should you want to.

Sounds better. Not to you?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport

?The two most common causes of death in the United States are medical: heart disease and cancer, respectively. According to a new study, the third cause could also be medical—in a terrifying way. According to research published in the British Medical Journal, medical errors in hospitals and other medical facilities could be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., claiming 250,000 lives every year. There's an old saying that Doctors can bury their mistakes and it looks to me for every House you have working in hospitals over there you also have an equal number of Shipman's.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"?The two most common causes of death in the United States are medical: heart disease and cancer, respectively. According to a new study, the third cause could also be medical—in a terrifying way. According to research published in the British Medical Journal, medical errors in hospitals and other medical facilities could be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., claiming 250,000 lives every year. There's an old saying that Doctors can bury their mistakes and it looks to me for every House you have working in hospitals over there you also have an equal number of Shipman's. "
Yup doctors off more people every year then guns do.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"?The two most common causes of death in the United States are medical: heart disease and cancer, respectively. According to a new study, the third cause could also be medical—in a terrifying way. According to research published in the British Medical Journal, medical errors in hospitals and other medical facilities could be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., claiming 250,000 lives every year. There's an old saying that Doctors can bury their mistakes and it looks to me for every House you have working in hospitals over there you also have an equal number of Shipman's. Yup doctors off more people every year then guns do."

Ah, but guns do effectively cull a much higher proportion of your population than anywhere else in the world too.

I guess that this is all positive too.

Because, I believe, of an amendment to the Construction that should never be ammended.

Enjoy.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"?The two most common causes of death in the United States are medical: heart disease and cancer, respectively. According to a new study, the third cause could also be medical—in a terrifying way. According to research published in the British Medical Journal, medical errors in hospitals and other medical facilities could be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., claiming 250,000 lives every year. There's an old saying that Doctors can bury their mistakes and it looks to me for every House you have working in hospitals over there you also have an equal number of Shipman's. Yup doctors off more people every year then guns do.

Ah, but guns do effectively cull a much higher proportion of your population than anywhere else in the world too.

I guess that this is all positive too.

Because, I believe, of an amendment to the Construction that should never be ammended.

Enjoy."
are you aware we are a gun culture? Explain how you are going to invoke a total ban.When there are more guns then people. I'll give you a thought. I wake up.. have coffee and breakfast. Get dressed for work start my vehicle grab my lunch holster my g19 and live my day knowing I can protect myself in a gun society. It's really not that hard.we like the ability to just say no to government and others. It might be appalling to you. Just like beans on toast is appalling to me.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"?The two most common causes of death in the United States are medical: heart disease and cancer, respectively. According to a new study, the third cause could also be medical—in a terrifying way. According to research published in the British Medical Journal, medical errors in hospitals and other medical facilities could be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., claiming 250,000 lives every year. There's an old saying that Doctors can bury their mistakes and it looks to me for every House you have working in hospitals over there you also have an equal number of Shipman's. Yup doctors off more people every year then guns do.

Ah, but guns do effectively cull a much higher proportion of your population than anywhere else in the world too.

I guess that this is all positive too.

Because, I believe, of an amendment to the Construction that should never be ammended.

Enjoy. are you aware we are a gun culture? Explain how you are going to invoke a total ban.When there are more guns then people. I'll give you a thought. I wake up.. have coffee and breakfast. Get dressed for work start my vehicle grab my lunch holster my g19 and live my day knowing I can protect myself in a gun society. It's really not that hard.we like the ability to just say no to government and others. It might be appalling to you. Just like beans on toast is appalling to me.

"

What's the solution to all the mass killings, and mass school shootings over there?

Whatever you guys are doing now, it isn't working. I'm always curious what the pro gun people suggest.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"?The two most common causes of death in the United States are medical: heart disease and cancer, respectively. According to a new study, the third cause could also be medical—in a terrifying way. According to research published in the British Medical Journal, medical errors in hospitals and other medical facilities could be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., claiming 250,000 lives every year. There's an old saying that Doctors can bury their mistakes and it looks to me for every House you have working in hospitals over there you also have an equal number of Shipman's. Yup doctors off more people every year then guns do.

Ah, but guns do effectively cull a much higher proportion of your population than anywhere else in the world too.

I guess that this is all positive too.

Because, I believe, of an amendment to the Construction that should never be ammended.

Enjoy. are you aware we are a gun culture? Explain how you are going to invoke a total ban.When there are more guns then people. I'll give you a thought. I wake up.. have coffee and breakfast. Get dressed for work start my vehicle grab my lunch holster my g19 and live my day knowing I can protect myself in a gun society. It's really not that hard.we like the ability to just say no to government and others. It might be appalling to you. Just like beans on toast is appalling to me.

What's the solution to all the mass killings, and mass school shootings over there?

Whatever you guys are doing now, it isn't working. I'm always curious what the pro gun people suggest."
Well let me paint a even broader picture for you. Your number one institution people trust there is the NHS. Guess what ours is ?.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"?The two most common causes of death in the United States are medical: heart disease and cancer, respectively. According to a new study, the third cause could also be medical—in a terrifying way. According to research published in the British Medical Journal, medical errors in hospitals and other medical facilities could be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., claiming 250,000 lives every year. There's an old saying that Doctors can bury their mistakes and it looks to me for every House you have working in hospitals over there you also have an equal number of Shipman's. Yup doctors off more people every year then guns do.

Ah, but guns do effectively cull a much higher proportion of your population than anywhere else in the world too.

I guess that this is all positive too.

Because, I believe, of an amendment to the Construction that should never be ammended.

Enjoy. are you aware we are a gun culture? Explain how you are going to invoke a total ban.When there are more guns then people. I'll give you a thought. I wake up.. have coffee and breakfast. Get dressed for work start my vehicle grab my lunch holster my g19 and live my day knowing I can protect myself in a gun society. It's really not that hard.we like the ability to just say no to government and others. It might be appalling to you. Just like beans on toast is appalling to me.

"

I’m sure the thousands of school kids killed over the years and their families are just as happy as you! Awful society.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"?The two most common causes of death in the United States are medical: heart disease and cancer, respectively. According to a new study, the third cause could also be medical—in a terrifying way. According to research published in the British Medical Journal, medical errors in hospitals and other medical facilities could be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., claiming 250,000 lives every year. There's an old saying that Doctors can bury their mistakes and it looks to me for every House you have working in hospitals over there you also have an equal number of Shipman's. Yup doctors off more people every year then guns do.

Ah, but guns do effectively cull a much higher proportion of your population than anywhere else in the world too.

I guess that this is all positive too.

Because, I believe, of an amendment to the Construction that should never be ammended.

Enjoy. are you aware we are a gun culture? Explain how you are going to invoke a total ban.When there are more guns then people. I'll give you a thought. I wake up.. have coffee and breakfast. Get dressed for work start my vehicle grab my lunch holster my g19 and live my day knowing I can protect myself in a gun society. It's really not that hard.we like the ability to just say no to government and others. It might be appalling to you. Just like beans on toast is appalling to me.

What's the solution to all the mass killings, and mass school shootings over there?

Whatever you guys are doing now, it isn't working. I'm always curious what the pro gun people suggest. Well let me paint a even broader picture for you. Your number one institution people trust there is the NHS. Guess what ours is ?."

Your suggested solution for all the mass school shootings is to talk about the NHS?

I'm assuming you don't think it's a good thing that kids get shot to death regularly over there!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"?The two most common causes of death in the United States are medical: heart disease and cancer, respectively. According to a new study, the third cause could also be medical—in a terrifying way. According to research published in the British Medical Journal, medical errors in hospitals and other medical facilities could be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., claiming 250,000 lives every year. There's an old saying that Doctors can bury their mistakes and it looks to me for every House you have working in hospitals over there you also have an equal number of Shipman's. Yup doctors off more people every year then guns do.

Ah, but guns do effectively cull a much higher proportion of your population than anywhere else in the world too.

I guess that this is all positive too.

Because, I believe, of an amendment to the Construction that should never be ammended.

Enjoy. are you aware we are a gun culture? Explain how you are going to invoke a total ban.When there are more guns then people. I'll give you a thought. I wake up.. have coffee and breakfast. Get dressed for work start my vehicle grab my lunch holster my g19 and live my day knowing I can protect myself in a gun society. It's really not that hard.we like the ability to just say no to government and others. It might be appalling to you. Just like beans on toast is appalling to me.

I’m sure the thousands of school kids killed over the years and their families are just as happy as you! Awful society."
what's your solution then? You can't even fathom one. So being a gun culture I as a law abiding citizen have to give up a right that criminals can give two shits about? Yet you not condemning the criminal you are passing judgement on me.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport


"?The two most common causes of death in the United States are medical: heart disease and cancer, respectively. According to a new study, the third cause could also be medical—in a terrifying way. According to research published in the British Medical Journal, medical errors in hospitals and other medical facilities could be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., claiming 250,000 lives every year. There's an old saying that Doctors can bury their mistakes and it looks to me for every House you have working in hospitals over there you also have an equal number of Shipman's. Yup doctors off more people every year then guns do.

Ah, but guns do effectively cull a much higher proportion of your population than anywhere else in the world too.

I guess that this is all positive too.

Because, I believe, of an amendment to the Construction that should never be ammended.

Enjoy. are you aware we are a gun culture? Explain how you are going to invoke a total ban.When there are more guns then people. I'll give you a thought. I wake up.. have coffee and breakfast. Get dressed for work start my vehicle grab my lunch holster my g19 and live my day knowing I can protect myself in a gun society. It's really not that hard.we like the ability to just say no to government and others. It might be appalling to you. Just like beans on toast is appalling to me.

I’m sure the thousands of school kids killed over the years and their families are just as happy as you! Awful society. what's your solution then? You can't even fathom one. So being a gun culture I as a law abiding citizen have to give up a right that criminals can give two shits about? Yet you not condemning the criminal you are passing judgement on me."

As long as the kids have health insurance they'll be fine.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"?The two most common causes of death in the United States are medical: heart disease and cancer, respectively. According to a new study, the third cause could also be medical—in a terrifying way. According to research published in the British Medical Journal, medical errors in hospitals and other medical facilities could be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., claiming 250,000 lives every year. There's an old saying that Doctors can bury their mistakes and it looks to me for every House you have working in hospitals over there you also have an equal number of Shipman's. Yup doctors off more people every year then guns do.

Ah, but guns do effectively cull a much higher proportion of your population than anywhere else in the world too.

I guess that this is all positive too.

Because, I believe, of an amendment to the Construction that should never be ammended.

Enjoy. are you aware we are a gun culture? Explain how you are going to invoke a total ban.When there are more guns then people. I'll give you a thought. I wake up.. have coffee and breakfast. Get dressed for work start my vehicle grab my lunch holster my g19 and live my day knowing I can protect myself in a gun society. It's really not that hard.we like the ability to just say no to government and others. It might be appalling to you. Just like beans on toast is appalling to me.

I’m sure the thousands of school kids killed over the years and their families are just as happy as you! Awful society. what's your solution then? You can't even fathom one. So being a gun culture I as a law abiding citizen have to give up a right that criminals can give two shits about? Yet you not condemning the criminal you are passing judgement on me."

Is your right to carry a gun worth all the dead kids?

Am i wrong that you think something needs to be done to stop the mass school shootings?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

[Removed by poster at 04/02/23 20:00:20]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

Criminals accessing firearms is more widespread if the guns are legal.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Criminals accessing firearms is more widespread if the guns are legal. "

I'm presuming that even the most fun toting Americans out there, don't actively want mass school shootings.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Criminals accessing firearms is more widespread if the guns are legal.

I'm presuming that even the most fun toting Americans out there, don't actively want mass school shootings."

*Gun

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Criminals accessing firearms is more widespread if the guns are legal. "
California has the most mass shootings with the strictest gun laws. Crazy...Your point is moot.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

How far is the nearest state where gun laws are lax? Is it just a case of driving over to the next state? They aren't buying them legally. They will buy them in from people who have access to them, in the same country. Driving across a state line is not a difficult thing.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Criminals accessing firearms is more widespread if the guns are legal. California has the most mass shootings with the strictest gun laws. Crazy...Your point is moot.

"

The rest of the world has less guns and less mass shootings.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"How far is the nearest state where gun laws are lax? Is it just a case of driving over to the next state? They aren't buying them legally. They will buy them in from people who have access to them, in the same country. Driving across a state line is not a difficult thing. "
Under federal law, people are generally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or some domestic violence misdemeanors, or if they are subject to certain court orders related to domestic violence or a serious mental condition. If you a criminal you are not going to comply. I do

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"How far is the nearest state where gun laws are lax? Is it just a case of driving over to the next state? They aren't buying them legally. They will buy them in from people who have access to them, in the same country. Driving across a state line is not a difficult thing. "

It's the most populous state. So they have the most everything.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"How far is the nearest state where gun laws are lax? Is it just a case of driving over to the next state? They aren't buying them legally. They will buy them in from people who have access to them, in the same country. Driving across a state line is not a difficult thing. Under federal law, people are generally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or some domestic violence misdemeanors, or if they are subject to certain court orders related to domestic violence or a serious mental condition. If you a criminal you are not going to comply. I do

"

What's the solution Blu? To all the mass shootings and kids being shot in schools etc?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"How far is the nearest state where gun laws are lax? Is it just a case of driving over to the next state? They aren't buying them legally. They will buy them in from people who have access to them, in the same country. Driving across a state line is not a difficult thing. Under federal law, people are generally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or some domestic violence misdemeanors, or if they are subject to certain court orders related to domestic violence or a serious mental condition. If you a criminal you are not going to comply. I do

"
All for banning handguns the number 1 weapon of choice. I hate them.. I more comfortable with a longun like the AR. Yet the media paints the AR as the villain over handguns.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth


"Criminals accessing firearms is more widespread if the guns are legal.

I'm presuming that even the most fun toting Americans out there, don't actively want mass school shootings."

At best, they appear to accept the mind-boggling deaths of schoolchildren as a price American society has to pay for access to firearms. Why, I will never ever know. Germany, like the United States, is a federal country. It enacted a series of gun restrictions in response to its worst ever school shooting. It remains its worst ever school shooting. 4 out of the 5 worst school shootings in American history have occured since then, including all of the worst 3.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth


"How far is the nearest state where gun laws are lax? Is it just a case of driving over to the next state? They aren't buying them legally. They will buy them in from people who have access to them, in the same country. Driving across a state line is not a difficult thing. Under federal law, people are generally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or some domestic violence misdemeanors, or if they are subject to certain court orders related to domestic violence or a serious mental condition. If you a criminal you are not going to comply. I do

"

Your point was about criminals accessing guns. They don't play by the rules. They will commit a federal offence to obtain them. That is far easier to do in a country where guns are legal.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"How far is the nearest state where gun laws are lax? Is it just a case of driving over to the next state? They aren't buying them legally. They will buy them in from people who have access to them, in the same country. Driving across a state line is not a difficult thing. Under federal law, people are generally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or some domestic violence misdemeanors, or if they are subject to certain court orders related to domestic violence or a serious mental condition. If you a criminal you are not going to comply. I do

All for banning handguns the number 1 weapon of choice. I hate them.. I more comfortable with a longun like the AR. Yet the media paints the AR as the villain over handguns."
I carry a. Pistol because it's less frowned upon compared to a long gun.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"How far is the nearest state where gun laws are lax? Is it just a case of driving over to the next state? They aren't buying them legally. They will buy them in from people who have access to them, in the same country. Driving across a state line is not a difficult thing. Under federal law, people are generally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or some domestic violence misdemeanors, or if they are subject to certain court orders related to domestic violence or a serious mental condition. If you a criminal you are not going to comply. I do

All for banning handguns the number 1 weapon of choice. I hate them.. I more comfortable with a longun like the AR. Yet the media paints the AR as the villain over handguns. I carry a. Pistol because it's less frowned upon compared to a long gun."
Now you know...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

I don't. As I've said, if you are a criminal, guns are easier to obtain in a country where guns are legal. You feel you have to carry one because you are allowed to carry one. If the federal country of Germany can enact federal gun laws which result in fewer schoolchildren being murdered, I'd say that's successful reform worth learning from.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I don't. As I've said, if you are a criminal, guns are easier to obtain in a country where guns are legal. You feel you have to carry one because you are allowed to carry one. If the federal country of Germany can enact federal gun laws which result in fewer schoolchildren being murdered, I'd say that's successful reform worth learning from. "
what is your suggestion then ? Raiding people's houses to find every single one? That would go over so well with the population. Where a home is a sanctuary from government control. Castle doctrine will come into play.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

330 million search warrants. Yea that doable.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"330 million search warrants. Yea that doable."
I can just easily say I lost my firearms in a tragic boating accident and just hide them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"330 million search warrants. Yea that doable. I can just easily say I lost my firearms in a tragic boating accident and just hide them."

Blu, what is the solution to all the mass killings and school shootings?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

As appalling as it may seem there. It's just a normal way of life here. Just like I find things appalling there..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport

[Removed by poster at 04/02/23 21:08:56]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport


"How far is the nearest state where gun laws are lax? Is it just a case of driving over to the next state? They aren't buying them legally. They will buy them in from people who have access to them, in the same country. Driving across a state line is not a difficult thing. Under federal law, people are generally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or some domestic violence misdemeanors, or if they are subject to certain court orders related to domestic violence or a serious mental condition. If you a criminal you are not going to comply. I do

"

You seem to have missed a court ruling yesterday when the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the government can’t stop people who have domestic violence restraining orders filed against them from owning guns. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2023/02/04/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-domestic-violence-gun-law/

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"As appalling as it may seem there. It's just a normal way of life here. Just like I find things appalling there.."

What appalls you about the UK as much as mass school shootings?

So do I take it you're cool with kids getting murdered, because it's just normal?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"As appalling as it may seem there. It's just a normal way of life here. Just like I find things appalling there..

What appalls you about the UK as much as mass school shootings?

So do I take it you're cool with kids getting murdered, because it's just normal?"
what is your suggestions on a total ban?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

How did Germany manage? East Germans only saw the back of state tyranny after the fall of the Berlin wall. You would have thought the sufferers of such terrible circumstances wouldn't be keen on surrendering their defence against such tyranny. Even those who live in Western Germany may not have been too keen given what happened a bit further back in German history.

I think in the US, it would be a slow transition. Ban on certain types of gun sales, take any opportunities to remove full and semi-automatics, new buyers of the legal guns, anyone found guilty of any crime, they all have to surrender any soon to be illegal firearm. And an amnesty until the ban takes place, hand in your firearm and receive cash for it. Follow that period with a registration period, make it an obligation to come forward and register what you have which can no longer be sold, offer cash incentives or whatever. These weapons would be legal to keep but not to sell or giveaway. After that, a ban would come into effect. There may have been 330 million before those measures were taken but a great many would be taken off the streets before a single search warrant is issued.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"As appalling as it may seem there. It's just a normal way of life here. Just like I find things appalling there..

What appalls you about the UK as much as mass school shootings?

So do I take it you're cool with kids getting murdered, because it's just normal? what is your suggestions on a total ban?"

I'm asking what your suggestion is. Whatever you're doing now simply isn't working.

I would suggest making weapons much more difficult to obtain, and have stricter rules about how to store them. Basically, what the rest of the world does.

I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on how to reduce the number of mass shootings, especially in schools.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"As appalling as it may seem there. It's just a normal way of life here. Just like I find things appalling there..

What appalls you about the UK as much as mass school shootings?

So do I take it you're cool with kids getting murdered, because it's just normal? what is your suggestions on a total ban?"
lock up everyone with a illegal firearm? Start race profiling again ?that would go over so peaceful and serene. Having a gun here is just like owning a car or going to the doctors. There are risks involved.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"As appalling as it may seem there. It's just a normal way of life here. Just like I find things appalling there..

What appalls you about the UK as much as mass school shootings?

So do I take it you're cool with kids getting murdered, because it's just normal? what is your suggestions on a total ban? lock up everyone with a illegal firearm? Start race profiling again ?that would go over so peaceful and serene. Having a gun here is just like owning a car or going to the doctors. There are risks involved."

What's your suggestion?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

No one is saying ban all guns, are they? Germany still has a gun culture, as does Britain and quite a lot of Europe. Firearms aren't all banned, just the ones which there's no justification for allowing masses of people to own and shoot each other with.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"As appalling as it may seem there. It's just a normal way of life here. Just like I find things appalling there..

What appalls you about the UK as much as mass school shootings?

So do I take it you're cool with kids getting murdered, because it's just normal? what is your suggestions on a total ban? lock up everyone with a illegal firearm? Start race profiling again ?that would go over so peaceful and serene. Having a gun here is just like owning a car or going to the doctors. There are risks involved.

What's your suggestion?"
I have none. It's our way of life . If people mention other variables they get crucified so I'll just accept that status quo and protect myself to the best of my ability.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"As appalling as it may seem there. It's just a normal way of life here. Just like I find things appalling there..

What appalls you about the UK as much as mass school shootings?

So do I take it you're cool with kids getting murdered, because it's just normal? what is your suggestions on a total ban? lock up everyone with a illegal firearm? Start race profiling again ?that would go over so peaceful and serene. Having a gun here is just like owning a car or going to the doctors. There are risks involved.

What's your suggestion? I have none. It's our way of life . If people mention other variables they get crucified so I'll just accept that status quo and protect myself to the best of my ability.

"

So you genuinely don't think anyone should even try to reduce the number of school kids getting shot and killed?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"No one is saying ban all guns, are they? Germany still has a gun culture, as does Britain and quite a lot of Europe. Firearms aren't all banned, just the ones which there's no justification for allowing masses of people to own and shoot each other with. "
didn't I agree to banning the number 1 weapon of choice for all homicides?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"No one is saying ban all guns, are they? Germany still has a gun culture, as does Britain and quite a lot of Europe. Firearms aren't all banned, just the ones which there's no justification for allowing masses of people to own and shoot each other with. didn't I agree to banning the number 1 weapon of choice for all homicides?"
and suicide. Yet the black scary rifle is the issue.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

The federal country of Germany has enacted restrictive firearms legislation. It has decreased the amount of schoolchildren who get murdered in their classrooms. If Germany can, why shouldn't the US try to?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The federal country of Germany has enacted restrictive firearms legislation. It has decreased the amount of schoolchildren who get murdered in their classrooms. If Germany can, why shouldn't the US try to?"

2nd amendment.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amantMan
over a year ago

Alnmouth

That's not an answer. The constitution has been amended before. What's stopping them from amending it now?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The federal country of Germany has enacted restrictive firearms legislation. It has decreased the amount of schoolchildren who get murdered in their classrooms. If Germany can, why shouldn't the US try to?"
I gave you the key to the majority of deaths with firearms without violating constitutional rights. Handguns....is the number one weapon of choice across all weapon platforms. Yet no one understands. They just feed into the media hype. Handguns are the number 1 choice for homicides the number 1 choice for suicide. Yet the long guns are the villains. Does that make any sense. I know plenty of firearm owners who would agree with me. I have a conceal carry permit. I would rather open carry because felons conceal until the act of violence. If everyone open carries well it make them think otherwise.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"One of the more frustrating things is getting right-wing people to see past the end of their own nose sometimes.

The advantage of universal healthcare, along with so many other socialist ideas such as fair, inflation-linked wages and paid maternity/family leave, is that it makes for a better, healthier workforce that is more productive.

When you have a worker who is well, and who isn't having health issues, they can be more productive at work. Also sick people tend to die earlier, resulting in conpanies losing trained and skilled employees.

Same for educated employees; they're better at their jobs. Same goes for happier employees.

Exploiting the poor and keeeping them down will only work to a limited extent. "

Bollocks.

The socialist mindset is based on envy and theft.

Take from those who have worked hard and give to lazy fuks who can't be bothered.

It destroys the will to win and try and creates a culture of dependency.

It's never worked anywhere on earth.

Name me one successful socialist country. And don't say Scandinavian ones cause they ain't socialist.

Go on, they.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top