For those who dont know what socialism is...
- Thread starter crimsonshrouds
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To look at this from a different angle, the core principle of the NHS (because when the US talks about Socialism they mean Obama's social healthcare) is a comprehensive national health service, free at the point of need. So healthcare determined by clinical need as opposed to the ability to pay.
How on earth can you argue against that? Seriously what the fuck?
I think the US suffering a serious hang over from the anti-commie propaganda of the 50s.
How on earth can you argue against that? Seriously what the fuck?
I think the US suffering a serious hang over from the anti-commie propaganda of the 50s.
Because the company would exploit its position of power more than a democratic government would.LockHeart said:
Which we can see when looking at the American system.
True, but don't think for a second that this'll benefit the consumer in any way, quite the contrary actually.
The private insurance companies cut costs wherever the customer is concerned, too.
Simply wrong. Public healthcare has an alotted budget with which it must perform.
The state doesn't like wasting money, either.
No, they don't. If you are privately insured, you are freed of the compulsory coverage. At least that's how it is in Germany.
And even if that weren't so, it wouldn't matter because we're a solidary community.
The "fend for themselves"-attitude is a relic of the industrialization.
many things make perfect sense to be government run because they will help ensure that everyone survives and can live relatively well. most people who are for socialized health care don't think that the government should run everything they believe that the government should merely ensure the well being of the people. in that sense health care is just like public education and is considered by many to be a basic right of the people meaning instituting public health care in no way leads to the government owning all buisness
Well next time make a thread that is not pointless and more precisely, stupid. socialism is needed in all governments to some extent otherwise you end up with a right wing bunch of gits... like the majority of the british public. But you made the mistake of failing to see the point of the proposed national health service and instead did the typical American thing (sorry, couldnt think of anything else to say) and denounced anything new, and you feared the communist threatcrimsonshrouds said:
How exactly? In what ways does the American system cover this? Here in Britain, we have the contrary:Skeleon said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1563108/Smoker-refused-operation-on-broken-ankle.html
Public healthcare exploiting its position of power?
How does this not benefit consumers? If overheads are cut, it's logical that prices will drop accordingly because there will not be as big a loss to recoup - from what I've seen they always have.Skeleon said:
A budget which it is always guaranteed through general taxation - it does not run the risk of driving off patients and therefore losing revenue because people are forced to pay: with an entire nation paying national insurance it can afford to waste whatever it wants because there will always be more at the start of the next financial year. It cannot go bust so there's no concern. It's not that the State likes wasting money, it's just that they don't give a flying fuck because there's always more coming in through the tax take.Skeleon said:
Well we have a compulsory system here in Britain - everybody pays. I fully support the 'fend for yourself' attitude, I'm not responsible for other people. If I felt like I wanted extra security then I'd join a Friendly Society or something similar. Instead, I will have to pay for something I don't want to under threat of force.Skeleon said:
Yes, I'm sure the NHS and the welfare state never happened, and you'd presume to correct me on those points of my own history.Rooster Cogburn said:
There were a nice number of scandals where insurance companies would not pay for necessary operations. Watch the movie Sicko (there was a segment about a cancer patient among others) or check this link out: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/watch.html (posted by another person in a NHS thread; sorry, dude, don't remember your nick and am too lazy to check).LockHeart said:
Especially the part about Nataline.
Maybe, though in this case it sounds more like it's actually the doctors' decision that stands in the way.
I'm no pro in this area, but considering he did not try to get treatment until two years after the accident and tissues tend to scar and indurate, this operation'd probably be very difficult.
Add to this the worse healing abilities of smokers and maybe the doctors have a point.
I'm not trying to excuse their actions thereby, but I think the combination of these factors is a possible explanation.
They don't, though.
Prices stay about the same while the relation between healthcare expenses and shareholder profits shifts steadily towards the latter.
True, but that's not the point. As I said, the budget is limited. It's stable, yes, but limited. Monetary decisions have to be made just like any company, however, the goal is not profit optimization but a well balanced spending.
Healthier for the patients by far.
It cannot because the alotted budget must last until the end of the year.
If your healthcare system really goes around wasting money like you say it does, then the problem is with the particular organisation of your system, not with NHS in general.
Hm, well, in my opinion still no biggie.
As a European, I feel that this view is very backwards. The whole is stronger than the sum of its parts. But to each their own, I guess.
Not to be offensive, but many Escapist members from the UK seem to have a viewpoint rather along the lines of US policy. In fact, it appears to be a trend among UK citizens in general.
Hell, we even discussed this topic ("the 51st state") in college once.
The British NHS is one of the best healthcare systems in the world (certainly better than America's), and it is entirely publicly owned.
/thread
/thread
That's vey sad, almost as if some of those companies were committing insurance fraud. It seems to be that they were acting within the law though, maybe people should look for better providers?Skeleon said:
However, there's plenty of instances of that happening in public healthcare as well, i.e. in Britain we have a bit of a postcode lottery when it comes to getting essential cancer drugs - if you live in one area you might get lucky, but otherwise the system you've been paying into will say that you can't have the medication you need, and God forbid if you try and supplement your own treatment privately - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/02/nhs.health
My point is that if he's being forced into paying for the system, he should get the treatment - it's hardly as if he's asking for a lung transplant as a heavy smoker. Operations aren't finite resources, unlike organs. What you're seeing is the imposition of a political agenda on a man who has been forced to pay for healthcare provision that he is being denied. It also says that he did get it plastered up when he first broke it, but it didn't set.Skeleon said:
Then I highly recommend that Americans avoid these companies and look for better healthcare providers. Unless it's documented as a national trend, I don't see why this isn't possible.Skeleon said:
What I would quite like to have is a system of Singapore-style health accounts that you pay into to use for everyday things like trips to the GP etc., then have catastrophic insurance on top of that which is only invoked when your account's balance would be overwhelmed. I've read up on it and it seems like a very good system.
The goal is well-balanced spending you say? Well the NHS obviously has that high on the agenda, considering it's the world's 3rd biggest employer after Indian State Rail and the Chinese fricking Army (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1050197.ece).Skeleon said:
What I've been saying is that if an entity is guaranteed funding, with no chance of it losing said funding, it will not care about the amount of wastage - a private company might well find itself bust if its yearly profits fall and thus has an incentive to cut down on bureacracy, but a public body will always have money so it can waste as much as it wants: if it runs a deficit, it can wait until next year's funds come in (as the NHS has a track record of doing).
But anyhow, what you're saying is going to lead to massive problems later with public health systems anyway - most developed countries have aging populations, once this passes a point there will be more people using healthcare and not contributing to the system than there will be of those paying in: the only realistic way to sustain it would be to drive up taxation (and thus push people closer to poverty) or open up the system to competition.
See my above point.Skeleon said:
As a Briton I feel that the opposite view is very naive. The whole is only as strong as the sum of its parts, and the strongest of these parts at that. To be fair, I've been feeling that I'm more of a minority in mainstream society, though there is an undercurrent of people wanting change. It's actually quite nice to come on the Escapist and find people who agree with me though, and people who are willing to have a civilised discussion on itSkeleon said:
*extends hand*
Yeah, that's what I meant with bad regulation.LockHeart said:
I suppose a purely economical system could work if the legislation and regulation were stricter. But if you leave a company to do what it wants, it results in circumstances reminiscient of the industrialization.
That's just horrible!
What you get prescriptions to pay privately for should not influence your NHS claims.
I hope they'll change those "guidelines". If it's approved by the medicating doctor, it definitely should be allowed to go parallel.
Ah, misunderstood you there.
Well, yes, he deserves some form of treatment at least (though not necessarily the one he wanted if its contraindicated in the doctors' opinion).
However, one should always remember that the patient is always in charge. A doctor can't force a specific treatment on the patient (though he may influence him into agreeing).
It's definitely a difficult balance-act.
I'm not sure on this, to be honest. From what I heard, there are only about 4 major insurance companies which all seem to be guilty of this. Perhaps the smaller ones aren't, but considering the major ones got basically a monopoly on this, I'm not sure how much choice the average American really has.
So, would that mean that everybody just pays into their own account?
And where does the money for this "catastrophic insurance" come from?
But as the article states, there are still shortages. Considering how time-consuming and important proper healthcare is, I don't think that statistic really qualifies as something negative. I agree, however, that we should try to keep administration/management to a minimum in those areas.
Many learnt people I spoke to about this said that much of the administrative apparatus could be removed through better IT systems. However, the people in charge are reluctant to do this because a) it's very expensive short-term and b) it'll cost jobs.
While the age problem is quite real, I don't think this is a reason to break apart the system. Yes, taxation will increase. But I believe that, if we make the market attractive for educated foreigners, we can "refill" our lack of young working class people. There are certainly difficult times ahead in terms of the NHS, but while we may need to cut spending somewhat, the system itself should remain in place in my opinion.
Yeah, as long as a discussion doesn't descend into flames, even opposing parties can have a nice discussion here. One of the main reasons I like the Escapist forums.It's actually quite nice to come on the Escapist and find people who agree with me though, and people who are willing to have a civilised discussion on it
*extends hand*
*shakes hand*
What your all forgetting is that any time the government runs something it inevitably becomes a muddled and bogged down mess.
Yeah, there would have to be some restrictions/regulation. I think that's one of the major problems in the US - I'm not a fan of regulation but there are some instances where it can be necessary.Skeleon said:
I know, this is one of my biggest things with our system - I just can't see why any sane person would think it up!Skeleon said:
I see what you mean, and it would be tough to balance it in some cases. It's just the barefaced cheek that gets to me in this case: he's paying their wages and they're effectively telling him to sod off.Skeleon said:
Yeah I know what you mean. I need to look into it more, it just seems baffling that 4 companies can have a stranglehold on a market that directly affects so many people.Skeleon said:
Sort of, it's a specialised account (I'd prefer it to be an optional thing but in Singapore it's compulsory) into which you can pay up to a limit recommended to you by a doctor or adviser depending on your level of fitness etc. Once you reach this limit, whatever it may be (you could add some extra if you wanted), you don't pay any more in. This is used to pay for everyday checkups, dental work etc. The insurance is provided by private companies and since it's only accessed on rare occassions (i.e. when a person needs medical care and cannot pay from their account) and not for everyday medical work, premiums remain low, even more so when you factor in that Singaporeans have an incentive to moderate their health spending. This has helped to create a market in which citizens are cost conscious and companies actively compete to provide better deals, leaving the system to run with fewer doctors, nurses and bureaucrats per capita (along with expenditure on healthcare running at around 3.5% of GDP) than most developed nations.Skeleon said:
I think the problem is that we have a disproportiante bureaucrat:frontline staff ratio. A family friend works as a District Nurse and her complaint is always the same - too top heavy. One major thing to do would be a drastic reallocation of resources and job places.Skeleon said:
They installed a new IT system though. It failed. Horribly. And ended taking up a lot more time and many more millions of pounds to get it into working order.
While it may not seem like a reason for breaking it apart, surely you can see the need for reform? As it is, here in Britain we have record numbers of foreign professionals working in the NHS (I actually know of a German gentleman who is being paid to work in the hospital near me throughout the week, then has his flight paid for back to Germany, then the cycle repeats). The whole problem is that it is constructed like a Ponzi scheme - the older investors are paid off with what the newer investors are paying in: when the intake dries up, the whole thing collapses.Skeleon said:
Anyhow, let's agree to disagree on this. But thank you very much for a stimulating and thought-provoking debate! This is why I love The Escapist!