- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@Duchess64..............Good, honest folks may differ, but I cannot understand why anyone would oppose health care. The $trillion and a half we wasted looking for, ''IMAGINARY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'', could have started a healthcare system.
@jimm619 saidBut the reality of it is that a healthcare system like the UK's NHS will SAVE
@Duchess64..............Good, honest folks may differ, but I cannot understand why anyone would oppose health care. The $trillion and a half we wasted looking for, ''IMAGINARY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'', could have started a healthcare system.
the US money, reduce waste, reduce bureaucracy, reduce legal fees!
The downside? Less choice and waiting lists.
Small price to pay and anyone can still pay for private treatment if they so wish.
@Duchess64
What we have now is an extremely profitable disease maintenance industry, and a perfect example of what happens when corporate capitalism gains monopoly over all health care. And contrary to what they tell you, drugs are not a necessary part of a healthy life.
@bunnyknight saidNo, they are a necessary part of disease management.
@Duchess64
And contrary to what they tell you, drugs are not a necessary part of a healthy life.
@divegeester saidI think you meant
No, they are a necessary part of disease management.
Yes, but they are a necessary part of disease management.
The majority of people in the uk and across the political spectrum would support an increase in tax to fund an improved NHS. This is a fine statistic so why doesn’t it happen?
Well it’s called reality. The NHS is already iro 7% of UK GDP and is steadily rising in absolute and % of GDP terms. The cost of the NHS is approximately £125,000,000,000 a year, 80% of which is raised from direct taxation and the rest form national insurance, tax basically. The premise is that at least an extra £20,000,000,000 is required each year and of course this too will increase. Depending on your source this means somewhere in the region of on average £2,000 per household, per year, and increasing each year.
So, reality sucks but “our survey says” people are prepard to pay more for an improved NHS. Yes they are, but NOT £2,000 per year every year and that might not even be enough. Hence the problem.
So here’s where reality bites. When Labour say they will “fix the national health service by investing in it” what does that actually mean? Nothing. When BoJo is cornered by reporters with photos of kids on hospital floors and accosted by Labour activists on the wards, what does that actually mean? Nothing. No government, under any circumstances whatsoever will levy a £2,000 a year average tax increase on domestic households. It’s not going to happen EVER.
Will Labour spend more on the NHS? The data indicates that they have in the past. Blair’s government spent billions extra and where did it mostly go...? Mostly into the pockets of the big MedTec and Pharma companies. I’ve seen the internal data first hand in a company I used to work for. The Blair investment drove a decade of sales growth in the blue chip medtec sector.
Do I trust Labour to spend more on the NHS than the Conservatives? Yes I do, but it won’t be anywhere near enough to make a dent In perceived service and there is no guarantee that anyone will notice the difference except NHS supplier P&Ls.
@wolfgang59 said"The downside? Less choice and waiting lists."
But the reality of it is that a healthcare system like the UK's NHS will SAVE
the US money, reduce waste, reduce bureaucracy, reduce legal fees!
The downside? Less choice and waiting lists.
Small price to pay and anyone can still pay for private treatment if they so wish.
What choice do americans have? The employer chooses the plan. The employer chooses when to change it. You can't choose the doctor or the hospital.
There are waiting lists in the US as well. It all depends on how shiny your insurance is.
@zahlanzi saidI'm just playing "Devil's Advocate"
"The downside? Less choice and waiting lists."
What choice do americans have?
maybe the waiting lists are as bad as UK.
But essentially "waiting lists" are a product of an efficient system.
@wolfgang59 saidThe option to pay for private treatment is the key. That's why I'm okay with an NHS-style system but not with single payer.
But the reality of it is that a healthcare system like the UK's NHS will SAVE
the US money, reduce waste, reduce bureaucracy, reduce legal fees!
The downside? Less choice and waiting lists.
Small price to pay and anyone can still pay for private treatment if they so wish.
I have insurance with low copays, but I sometimes have to wait a couple of days before seeing my doctor. I have another out of network doctor who will see you any time, but doesn't take my insurance.
If I need a physical or something, I don't mind waiting, but when I woke up with the flu on the day I was supposed to take my family to Florida, I called the second doctor and had by Tamiflu prescription by 9 AM. So I paid an extra $75 or so. I would have gladly paid twice that.
I think Americans can accept increased taxes to cover more people. We will not accept enforced wait times.
@zahlanzi saidYou're thinking of big companies. In small companies, employees have a lot of say over the health plan chosen.
"The downside? Less choice and waiting lists."
What choice do americans have? The employer chooses the plan. The employer chooses when to change it. You can't choose the doctor or the hospital.
There are waiting lists in the US as well. It all depends on how shiny your insurance is.
Also, for most plans, the networks are pretty darn big. You may not have 100% choice, but you have plenty of choice.
The post that was quoted here has been removed"The NHS is a precious thing. Try being ill in the US if you don’t believe this. If we allow US ‘big pharma’ to get its hands on the NHS, drug costs will rocket and millions will be priced out of healthcare."
100% correct. I've listened to the lies from big pharma and their conservative GOP minions in Congress for decades that "competition between companies will bring drug prices and healthcare costs down" Prices for both have skyrocketed in the last 30 years. It still amazes me that republican voters are too brainless to see this. If you want good healthcare coverage, stay away from big pharma!
@sh76 saidBeing on Medicare doesn't prevent seeking private treatment, does it? So why would Medicare-for-all be any different?
The option to pay for private treatment is the key. That's why I'm okay with an NHS-style system but not with single payer.
I have insurance with low copays, but I sometimes have to wait a couple of days before seeing my doctor. I have another out of network doctor who will see you any time, but doesn't take my insurance.
If I need a physical or something, I don't mind wai ...[text shortened]... k Americans can accept increased taxes to cover more people. We will not accept enforced wait times.
@mchill saidBut I thought Obamacare was suppose to fix everything.
"The NHS is a precious thing. Try being ill in the US if you don’t believe this. If we allow US ‘big pharma’ to get its hands on the NHS, drug costs will rocket and millions will be priced out of healthcare."
100% correct. I've listened to the lies from big pharma and their conservative GOP minions in Congress for decades that "competition between companies will bring dru ...[text shortened]... ters are too brainless to see this. If you want good healthcare coverage, stay away from big pharma!
What went wrong?
Were we lied to? And if so, are we to trust those same voices today that demand NHC, that sold us Obamacare yesterday?
The most frightening aspect of government run health care is, once they have control we will never get it back. And once they have control, we lose control with no one to complain to for wrongs we may be, and most certainly will be, exposed to in the system. And worst of all, our health care rights can change on a bureaucratic whim as both parties do what they always do when something gores wrong, they just point the finger at the other party with the partisan country taking their generic sides in the dispute, which essentially negates any accountability in either party. I can just hear the talking points today, the GOP does not fund it well enough or the democrats just don't care because all they care about is control of health care and not taking care of those in it.
Also factor in a media that will report such wrongs about as well as they report corruption within the democratic party.
And just look at how well the US government runs the VA. This is the current NHC system and it is a disgrace!
Now if they won't take care of our brave men and women who laid down their lives for their country the way they should, why in the hell would they give a damn about me?
Hmm?
Oh, and the way the IRS was weaponized by Obama to go after political opponents, conservatives may be faced with being denied those heart bypass procedures in the future as well.
@jimm619 saidWe were lied to with trillions being wasted in Iraq? So you want these same people to take care of your health care and decide what doctor you do or don't see? You want them to give a thumbs up or down on treatment options?
@Duchess64..............Good, honest folks may differ, but I cannot understand why anyone would oppose health care. The $trillion and a half we wasted looking for, ''IMAGINARY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'', could have started a healthcare system.
And how did the VA care for these poor bastards when they came home all shot up and their cages rattled?
Is this what you want?