KingBingo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 So you'd prefer Zambian or Somalian "health care", then? Moronic comment. Presumably from a Moron. Of course free marketeers do not want to copy a 3rd world countries healthcare anymore than we want to copy 3rd world restaurants. Its just an absurd point to make. But of course it is impossible to ever converse with a leftie on these matters, as all they can do is dream up far-fetched and ludicrous straw-man arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Oh sorry I didn't realise the NHS was having to compete with a theoretical system that doesn't, and never could, exist. In that case you win - your imaginary system would be better than my real life, backed with evidence, system. What a ****. This is typical of discussing this subject with lefties, all they ever do is tell you what they have decided you believe in, which is some ludicrous straw-man and then attack that ludicrous position . Well if you want an example start with what Switzerland use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrink Proof Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Moronic comment. Presumably from a Moron. Of course free marketeers do not want to copy a 3rd world countries healthcare anymore than we want to copy 3rd world restaurants. Its just an absurd point to make. But of course it is impossible to ever converse with a leftie on these matters, as all they can do is dream up far-fetched and ludicrous straw-man arguments. The poster suggetsed the NHS be scrapped & that in its place we copy "any other bloody system". But of course it is impossible to ever converse with a moron on these matters, as they are unable to recognise irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What a ****. This is typical of discussing this subject with lefties, all they ever do is tell you what they have decided you believe in, which is some ludicrous straw-man and then attack that ludicrous position . Well if you want an example start with what Switzerland use. A more expensive system with similar outcomes. Costs 10.6% of their GDP compared to ours at 8.6% How is it better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Yes yes, people are stupid, people are irresponsible. What we really need is a nanny state controlled by Guardian readers forcing everybody to do exactly what they are told. Indeed. I'll sellotape your sandals on myself. Edited February 17, 2012 by fluffy666 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The NHS is a failure. - It does not make efficient, or even slightly efficient, use of the resources thrown at it. - It's not been copied as it is crap. Some other Countries may have a similar scheme, but none has anything as inefficient and monolithic as the NHS. - It consistently provides healthcare results lower than that of other European Nations. - It is ruled by massive vested interests (Trade Union's of the Doctors and Nurses for a start). - It has a management system from Hell. It's crap. Scrap it, copy the French, or German, or Australian, or Irish, or any other bloody system. The NHS is causing unnecessary suffering and premature death for thousands of people each year - It's time for reform, we can't continue to chuck money at it in the hope it will improve, history tells us it will not. I've read some utter utter cr4p on here, but this takes the pi$$. You'll be trying to convince us all there's no M in Moron next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 A more expensive system with similar outcomes. Costs 10.6% of their GDP compared to ours at 8.6% How is it better? If you say so dear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What a ****. This is typical of discussing this subject with lefties....... zzzzzzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrink Proof Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 A more expensive system with similar outcomes. If you say so dear. No, the World Health Organisation says so. Here are the WHO rankings of different nation's health care systems. The UK is 18th out of 190 countries and Switzerland is 20th. You can be reassured that Norway is in a very creditable 11th place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easy2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I don't think it is fair to compare Singapore - it is a city state of 5m people and has central planning that would drive people mad here. OK if you really think it is unfair to include Singapore.. Actually UK spends 9.3% (2009 Data) of GDP on healthcare.. (expectancy M/F : 78/82) South Korea on 6.5% (77 / 83 ) Japan 8.3% (80/86) And just found out for those who live Cuba, Cuba spends 11.8% on health care, with a 76/80 expectancy. The other unique feature of NHS is that is is mostly funded by general taxation - which is a source of resentment, of course for those who are not using it very much (younger population). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Anyone know why when we travel overseas we buy travel insurance and if we unfortunately have to use the medical part of it the first thing the hospitals of that particular country ask for are your insurance details to recover the costs.....why afaiaa in this country we treat all and sundry from anywhere for free without taking or claiming on their insurance.....my experience but correct me if I am wrong...that could save a fair sum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What a ****. This is typical of discussing this subject with lefties, all they ever do is tell you what they have decided you believe in, which is some ludicrous straw-man and then attack that ludicrous position . Well if you want an example start with what Switzerland use. The Swiss are 'freemarketeers'? #fantasist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 A more expensive system with similar outcomes. Costs 10.6% of their GDP compared to ours at 8.6% How is it better? It's private sector see. In KingBingo's world - Government run = evil, devil worshiping, satanic. Private sector = good, holy, angelic. Therefore private sector health service must always be better. Inconvenient truths such as provided by real world studies should be ignored Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) If you say so dear. No, plenty of studies have shown it to be so. http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/08/08/surprise-report-nhs-most-efficient-healthcare. The NHS is one of the most efficient healthcare system in the world, according to a surprising new report. In a development which will complicate the government's arguments for healthcare reform, a Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine report found only Ireland's heathcare system saved more lives per pound spent. "The government proposals to change the NHS are largely based on the idea that the NHS is less efficient and effective than other countries, especially the US," said Professor Colin Pritchard, the Bournemouth University academic who analysed post-1980 data for the report. "The results question why we need a big set of health reform proposals. "The system works well. Look at the US and you can see where choice and competition gets you - pretty dismal results." The US performed particularly badly, as did Switzerland and Portugal. http://www.oecd.org/document/47/0,3343,en_2649_37407_37562223_1_1_1_37407,00.html The Swiss healthcare system compares well with other OECD countries. It has universal health-insurance coverage, permitting access to a broad range of modern medical services, and patients are largely satisfied with the health care they receive. However, spending on health as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the second highest (after the U.S.) in the OECD area, while other OECD countries perform equally well, or even better, at lower cost. etc, etc. But don't let the truth spoil your worldview. Edited February 17, 2012 by alexw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 It's private sector see. In KingBingo's world - Government run = evil, devil worshiping, satanic. Private sector = good, holy, angelic. Therefore private sector health service must always be better. Inconvenient truths such as provided by real world studies should be ignored Oh thanks for the heads up. I ran out of redbull, and fell asleep halfway through his first sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Its an irrelevance. I used to castigate the NHS for its unsustainable growth between 1997-2010 (its budget more than tripled, while personal incomes rose under 50%) but have noticed its the same the world over. In the US, france, germany. All heatlh expenditures, regardless of private or public ownership are unsustainable, and will cripple national economies within the decade. Fearmongering over private ownership is a diversion from the fact that healthcare is just another Ponzi whichever way you cut it. Edited February 17, 2012 by Executive Sadman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) No, plenty of studies have shown it to be so. http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/08/08/surprise-report-nhs-most-efficient-healthcare. The NHS is one of the most efficient healthcare system in the world, according to a surprising new report. In a development which will complicate the government's arguments for healthcare reform, a Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine report found only Ireland's heathcare system saved more lives per pound spent. "The government proposals to change the NHS are largely based on the idea that the NHS is less efficient and effective than other countries, especially the US," said Professor Colin Pritchard, the Bournemouth University academic who analysed post-1980 data for the report. "The results question why we need a big set of health reform proposals. "The system works well. Look at the US and you can see where choice and competition gets you - pretty dismal results." The US performed particularly badly, as did Switzerland and Portugal. any report that has the audacity and sheer front to mention the US as specifically more efficient is quite clearly a report specifically made to give a certain answer, its the equivalent of the Daily Mail generalising HB with a somali family in Mayfair, a bit embarrassing youd even post it. Not that i live in the uk but i dont think ive ever seen an article with the tories eulogising the US system of healthcare. As for the NHS, i'll always like it as a concept, can it survive the next couple of decades, with the popn demographic? whether people want it or not id guess it has bugger all chance under any govt of seeing out this cycle and whilst the service in Switzerland is no better from experience, it undoubtedly has the huge advantage of timing on non serious issues because thats what you pay for specifically, i cant see why the actual service and results of being seen would be much different, the NHS isnt the best or worst in the world but theres alot of sh!t in the UK that needs to be addressed before the NHS which gives a pretty good tangible return for what it is unlike nearly all of the rest of govt spending Edited February 17, 2012 by Tamara De Lempicka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Its also about leadership. In France their public system works great and is sustainable. In France they have a different mindset for running the government than in Britain. For example in France the brightest students in the nation hope to get into the elite universities which feed into the national bureaucracy. They also have a different ideological basis in their national bureaucracy. In Britain the best and brightest head into the private sector. Literally no one I know who had serious brains and ambitions when young, decided to choose a career in the NHS administration or any other government bureaucracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Its also about leadership. In France their public system works great and is sustainable. In France they have a different mindset for running the government than in Britain. For example in France the brightest students in the nation hope to get into the elite universities which feed into the national bureaucracy. They also have a different ideological basis in their national bureaucracy. In Britain the best and brightest head into the private sector. Literally no one I know who had serious brains and ambitions when young, decided to choose a career in the NHS administration or any other government bureaucracy. Err no France is very much like the UK, their public system is sustainable as long as they can keep expanding debt and promises, as for your assertation on universities, what planet did you make that up on, École Paris, Oxford and Cambridge serve identical purposes, they arent so much establishments of education as establishments of Networking and those with the best networks from those days go into govt or a neat path to directorship be it in a CAC or FTSE company, if noone you knew went into govt id humbly suggest they werent in the circles you are commenting on Edited February 17, 2012 by Tamara De Lempicka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Technically, the NHS is already private. As the main government revenue is now money printing as opposed to taxes. I often wonder in fact, why we are still having to even pay tax, when they can just print more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 It's private sector see. In KingBingo's world - Government run = evil, devil worshiping, satanic. Private sector = good, holy, angelic. Therefore private sector health service must always be better. Inconvenient truths such as provided by real world studies should be ignored To be fair, the public sector funds is expenditure through stealing and threatening violence... even from the unborn. The private, on the other hand, offers its services for which you can decline, without any theft or violence involved. So, if KingBingo did think that, he may have a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie The Tramp Returns Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Will The Temptation To Privatise The Nhs Become Too Strong November 2010 NHS sent me to a private hospital for a carpel tunnel problem. August 2011 the NHS sent me to a private hospital to remove 3 polyps. December 2011 the NHS sent me again to a private hospital for the removal of 2 very large polyps one measuring 3 CM across and the other 5 CM across. Many of my friends also have been sent to private hospitals for extensive surgery. All of us are pensioners. It appears it is already partly privatised especially for us twirlies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The NHS is a failure. - It does not make efficient, or even slightly efficient, use of the resources thrown at it. - It's not been copied as it is crap. Some other Countries may have a similar scheme, but none has anything as inefficient and monolithic as the NHS. - It consistently provides healthcare results lower than that of other European Nations. - It is ruled by massive vested interests (Trade Union's of the Doctors and Nurses for a start). - It has a management system from Hell. It's crap. Scrap it, copy the French, or German, or Australian, or Irish, or any other bloody system. The NHS is causing unnecessary suffering and premature death for thousands of people each year - It's time for reform, we can't continue to chuck money at it in the hope it will improve, history tells us it will not. Hilarious! Best troll of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Hilarious! Best troll of the year. And this is why Britain is doomed. No-one wants to fix the problems even when they're clearly explained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 And this is why Britain is doomed. No-one wants to fix the problems even when they're clearly explained. There were no facts in the that post, only opinions. Wrong opinions. It's always pointless to debate with someone who has made their mind up already. I would never take the contrarian view that all is perfect, but to come at the discussion from the other absolute position renders further debate pointless. Which makes it a troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.