The NHS really is something to be proud of.

[The Large One]

Dingodan, could you go and see your private optician please to counteract your excessive myopia.

And your paediatrician to help you consider the world beyond your adolescent, received views.

Oh, and your counsellor (preferably person-centred) to help you think for yourself.

 

[dingodan]

Dingodan, could you go and see your private optician please to counteract your excessive myopia.

And your paediatrician to help you consider the world beyond your adolescent, received views.

Oh, and your counsellor (preferably person-centred) to help you think for yourself.

 

[The Large One]

Well, clearly as you don't think for yourself, I feel you could do with some help.

Go on, do it. I dare you. Start thinking for yourself.

 

[Mental Lental]

The NHS is the singular reason why I will never give up my British passport. I love seeing the local's jaws literally drop when I casually tell them that medical care is free in the UK. For every shitty boo-hoo little tabloid sob story there are at least 10 successes that for some reason fail to make the newspapers. The NHS is the only shining light for a country that in almost every other aspect is basically going shithouse.

 

[beorhthelm]

theres a saying that the the NHS is the closest thing the british have to a state religion. i think this very true. at the mere suggestion that the Tory's might privatise even a portion of it, the chorus of dissent rose up from gamut of media, Sun to the Mirror, Telegraph to the Guardian, Mail to the Express. years of policy planning ditched in a few weeks.

for every bad case and sad tradgedy there must be a 1000 people treated without problems. its a national institution that serves us very well (in the most part) from craddle to grave. definatly some to be proud of and something we should be a little more appreciative of the difficulties it faces. (even if it is inefficent and over staffed in some areas. hey, it aint perfect.)

Not it is not. It is a cartel commonly referred to as Big Pharma. It is not capitalism, it is corporatism.

And to answer your 1st question I dont think the NHS (or government bureaucrats) should make life or death decisions for you or your family.

you're funny. you dont have a clue what corporatism even means on the basis of this. the Pharma companies are highly competitve, i work in the industry and they will invest 10s of millions into a product to get it chosen over a rival, and spend hundreds of millions to find that prodcut and the next one. its one of the most plural of all sectors in industry with multiple multinationals. meanwhile, the next big thing might be from a small startup in Cambridgeshire, the big boys dont have it all their own way.

as for clinical decisions, its not "the NHS" or bureaucrats but doctors make these. around the fringes, bureaucrats might have to decide what treatments are available, but this is for rare illnesses or where the treatment is just not worth it. the pot is only so big, theres harsh financial realities, those decisions need to be removed and calculated.

We have been conditioned to think that wealth comes from credit. It comes from savings.

maybe you've heard of insurance, collectivly saving for a future contingency? maybe you've heard of National Insurance? (though maybe you're not old enough yet to have this mean anything to you?). *you* cant afford to save in case you have a broken leg or need heart surgery, unless you save a large proportion of you earnings, which you never need. so we save together, collectivly insurancing ourselfs agains the unknown because we know a number of us will need the treatment, just not who or when.

It's still based on bad philosophy though. Sorry.

see above. if the philosophy of wanting to help the weak, ill, children and elderly is bad, then you have a warped philosophy. caring is not socialism, its just common sence and human decencey. its great really, because i and you dont have to worry about it, dont have to worry about the ill and elderly, some one else deals with it, on the promise that they'll deal with me when i get there (which i will).

 

[Falkor]

My son was born poorly and i have to say the care he got was second to nun, he is doing well now, still has to go back due to eye sight but his good and gets well looked after.

That said i had a bad time in hospital, but i have also had good times.

Its a great service.

And before people moan about people not getting treatment, a lad toomstoned of Brighton pier the over week was in Argus and the amount of care he got would have cost well over 10,000quid and he was not even badly injured at all, its morons like this that eat up the NHS money

 

[dingodan]

you're funny. you dont have a clue what corporatism even means on the basis of this. the Pharma companies are highly competitve, i work in the industry and they will invest 10s of millions into a product to get it chosen over a rival, and spend hundreds of millions to find that prodcut and the next one. its one of the most plural of all sectors in industry with multiple multinationals. meanwhile, the next big thing might be from a small startup in Cambridgeshire, the big boys dont have it all their own way.

This is not free market capitalism: Pharmaceutical lobby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as for clinical decisions, its not "the NHS" or bureaucrats but doctors make these. around the fringes, bureaucrats might have to decide what treatments are available, but this is for rare illnesses or where the treatment is just not worth it. the pot is only so big, theres harsh financial realities, those decisions need to be removed and calculated.

They would not have to decide anything if we were responsible for ourselves. Why is a "rare" illness less worthy of treatment than a common one? By "rare" illness do u just mean one that u will likely not get? Take a gamble that ur not one of the unlucky ones who dont get to be treated? The patient and their family should decide if it worth it. And the pot will never be big enough. Because the pot should be our own pot. That we put into and use as we decide, because we are responsible for our lives.

maybe you've heard of insurance, collectivly saving for a future contingency? maybe you've heard of National Insurance? (though maybe you're not old enough yet to have this mean anything to you?). *you* cant afford to save in case you have a broken leg or need heart surgery, unless you save a large proportion of you earnings, which you never need. so we save together, collectivly insurancing ourselfs agains the unknown because we know a number of us will need the treatment, just not who or when.

Im not against this idea at all, but we have this by compulsion. A cooperative or a mutual is a great idea, but it has to be voluntary and there should be competition.

see above. if the philosophy of wanting to help the weak, ill, children and elderly is bad, then you have a warped philosophy. caring is not socialism, its just common sence and human decencey. its great really, because i and you dont have to worry about it, dont have to worry about the ill and elderly, some one else deals with it, on the promise that they'll deal with me when i get there (which i will).

Is a philosophy I share. We differ in how it is best achieved. To suggest that I just dont care about people is cheap and u know its not true.

 

[beorhthelm]

This is not free market capitalism: Pharmaceutical lobby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

really? "Capitalism is an economic system structured upon the accumulation of capital in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.". Let's see... Pharmacutical companies aquire capital by way of private or shareholder investment, the means of production are private (as apposed to state owned), they are operated for profit and its a competitve market place of hundreds of companies worldwide. sound like capitalism to me.

just because they have a trade representitive who works on their behalf to lobby government, doesnt in any way remotly change this. *every* industry does this, as well as individual companies. i learnt today there is a group called the US Dry Pea & Lentil Council, its purpose for marketing, research and Government and Industry Education (love that). does this mean there's not a free market in pea or lentils? of course not, it means companies witha common vested interest want to make their point, just the same as everyone else.

i can only assume you pay into Bupa and such and will not make any use of the services the NHS provide. or for that matter the products of the pharmaceutical companies which you object to. i also suppse you must give very generously to charities to help the sick, which is the only way they would gain healthcare in the austrian school ideal compete free market.

 

[dingodan]

really? "Capitalism is an economic system structured upon the accumulation of capital in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.". Let's see... Pharmacutical companies aquire capital by way of private or shareholder investment, the means of production are private (as apposed to state owned), they are operated for profit and its a competitve market place of hundreds of companies worldwide. sound like capitalism to me.

just because they have a trade representitive who works on their behalf to lobby government, doesnt in any way remotly change this. *every* industry does this, as well as individual companies. i learnt today there is a group called the US Dry Pea & Lentil Council, its purpose for marketing, research and Government and Industry Education (love that). does this mean there's not a free market in pea or lentils? of course not, it means companies witha common vested interest want to make their point, just the same as everyone else.

Im not sure how much of a shock this will be to you but in the U.S. the regulators have been captured by those they are supposed to be regulating. The same applies in the media end elsewhere. Been going on a long time. revolving door. Not capitalism.

 

[FreeMarketsSuck]

Im not sure how much of a shock this will be to you but in the U.S. the regulators have been captured by those they are supposed to be regulating. The same applies in the media end elsewhere. Been going on a long time. revolving door. Not capitalism.

I only joined this forum because of your appalling argument. You've failed to provide anything, just rather "Oh, that's not free market...oh that's not free market either"

Wanna know the nature of the free-market?

Read about the so-called "Miracle of Chile" and the Chicago boys - possibly the biggest cock up in economic history. 375% inflation, 27% of the population in inadequate housing, real wages dropped by approximately 15% and the country's population that fell below the poverty line as about 40-45%.

Milton Friedman failed, the experiment of Chile lasted for about 30 years, and it took about 25 years for the economy to truly pick itself up and level out to how it was pre-military coup d'tat. (By the way, the guy before the coup d'tat was a democratically elected socialist, the coup was supported by the U.S for the sole purpose of experimenting on the free market)

Now, Mr. Libertarian, can you explain to the board how an economy is meant to remain safe at the hands of major monopolies? I don't mean the state, I mean major corporations at the present time that hold small businesses by the throat? Because the giants can simply over run the smaller businesses by many ways (such as lower prices for a short period to injury competition that they know cannot lower prices without risk of losing profit? in a micro-perspective, they possibly could do this.

What about the environment? It's not like BP give a shit about how many oil spills they create - should the destruction of the environment be allowed for the benefit of the CEO? But remember, without the tight regulation - they can't spill everywhere and not be held accountable. The damage done to the environment has social and economical consequences. Just look at the BP oil spill last year - the southern states' fisherman lost a lot of money because of the dead fish. In a free-market, there wouldn't be easy access to the judiciary. Luckily, the U.S government forced BP to pay compensation - would a libertarian world truly accept the rulings of a government? or the judiciary? Probably not, because it doesn't like to intervene in disputes unless it causes physical harm to individuals, then the state should then intervene.

Now, let's get back onto the NHS - You provided links from all right-wing papers...Nice unbiased opinions right there. Now, the NHS isn't actually completely controlled by the government, Doctors have a lot of autonomy, it's not like they have to ring up someone before they operate them to confirm it's acceptable. Now, under my circumstances: I'm blind in my right eye, and will require a false eye later in life; damage knee due to torn ligaments (expecting arthritis in the next decade) and have a small tear in the sternoclavicular ligament. No insurance company would touch me; why? Because when I need the medical attention, it costs them money. The NHS isn't perfect, no. But you can choose your doctor, you can choose your local GP practice. There is choice. The U.S system isn't a free-market medicine industry, no. You're right. But as previous users have stated. It's the closest you'll get, and look at the major flaws.

Now, you consistently persist that the U.S healthcare isn't a free-market system, can you explain to us how it exactly isn't a free-market system? Also, could you explain to us how so called competition will drive down prices. Iphone 3GS is still £300 for the 32gb, Blackberries are still £200+. Not only that, what evidence is there to suggest a free-market healthcare system would be more efficient than one right now? There's still layers of administration that private insurers must go through. And the waiting times would be smaller? Is that to suggest there'll be less people at hospital? Of course it does! Less people, because not everyone would be able to pay for full coverage. Like in the states! Healthcare insurance may not be that expensive to some people, but given some people's financial situation, would they be able to afford healthcare insurance? Full coverage? Probably not, some coverage; most likely. But that's not good enough. Healthcare is a human right - why should a person who's rich be able to get healthcare when a poor person can't? At the end of the day, it's not only a financial argument, but a moral argument.

Your argument "we are responsible for our lives" - very well, but who covers you if you've got limited health cover, and an uninsured driver runs you over? No one, you'll be left with charity organisations who'll be majorly underfunded, without adequate equipment to proceed with life threatening procedures.

"Not capitalism" - Do you honestly know what you're talking about? Capitalism is the accumulation of capital. There's no strict doctrine for capitalism.

State capitalism
Free-market capitalism/anarcho-capitalism
Market intervention capitalism

But also, what if 1 corporation begins to dominate a market, which already exists? Because then that corporation can begin to control the flow of that product in the market in order to up the price. The basic supply and demand rule of economics. But also quantitative value - once the resources begin to run out, the prices surge. How would people in the lower socio-economic chart be able to afford basic stuff? Price ceilings safe guard the consumer from being charged far too much for x product. Like in Scotland - you cannot agree with Scottish Gas trying to bring the prices right up. Because it's the poorest hit first. And guess what, it's the poor who work for the rich. If you've got loads of sick poor people who aren't being looked after, then your company isn't going to have much productive output, alas affecting your company's profits.

 

[FreeMarketsSuck]

Sorry for double-post.

Say that you've got extremely low corporation tax, income tax, VAT etc...then a foreign aggressor begins to threaten your national interests which could be devastating for the businesses based in your country? Propose a war? Which would immediately cause a deficit, and a tax hike to follow...

 

[FreeMarketsSuck]

You need to come around to the idea that your freedom is not divided into economic liberty and personal liberty. Liberty is one thing, you have a right to your life, your property and the fruits of your labour.

Free-market economies would abolish minimum wage, as it's seen as a "bad thing" because it apparently affects the economy (in reality, we all know it just means the company has to pay more out each month.)

Do you honestly think the miners before it was privatised were paid for the fruits of their labour? Considering the danger?....

Markets determining the wage - which could be anything. If you're unskilled, you're going to be paid naff (granted, someone with no GCSEs shouldn't be paid with someone with a Bsc Medicine) However, they should have the right to a decent and liveable wage. But also, companies could downgrade the wage for small perks of the job. £3.40 an hour + healthcare coverage or £7.80 an hour with no healthcare coverage. yes, you'll have healthcare - however, could you afford utility bills...food...luxury goods? Probably not.

"right to life" Yes, but what right does a corporation have to deny you access to health? - free market economy, they'd have every right to deny access...

 

[dingodan]

Free-market economies would abolish minimum wage, as it's seen as a "bad thing" because it apparently affects the economy (in reality, we all know it just means the company has to pay more out each month.)

Do you honestly think the miners before it was privatised were paid for the fruits of their labour? Considering the danger?....

Markets determining the wage - which could be anything. If you're unskilled, you're going to be paid naff (granted, someone with no GCSEs shouldn't be paid with someone with a Bsc Medicine) However, they should have the right to a decent and liveable wage. But also, companies could downgrade the wage for small perks of the job. £3.40 an hour + healthcare coverage or £7.80 an hour with no healthcare coverage. yes, you'll have healthcare - however, could you afford utility bills...food...luxury goods? Probably not.

"right to life" Yes, but what right does a corporation have to deny you access to health? - *free market economy, they'd have every right to deny access...

*But no incentive to.

Healthcare is not a right. It is a service. You misunderstand what rights are.

Tbh There is so much misunderstanding and confusion in these posts, lets just agree to disagree.

Did you really need a new account for this?

 

[jmsc]

24hrs ago Jnr Stat came off some monkey bars and smashed his arm.

Within minutes, less than 5, an ambulance was on the scene.
He was tended to brilliantly by the fellas there.
Off to and straight through hospital A&E, x-ray, specialist.

Within 4 hours he's being operated on, for 4 hours , through till midnight.

Obs done all night, then back home 24hrs after the ambulance was called.

I very rarely moan about the NHS, but probably have.
Then something like this happens and you realise just how bloody proud of it we should be, instead of kicking it around like a political football.

Hi SB, thanks for sharing that with us!

On behalf of the vast majority of folks on NSC, can I apologise for the moron that is dingodan for hijacking your post?

 

[RexCathedra]

Whatever you do, don't touch the NHS. And reject all offers to Americanize the service.

Its mere existence, and 60 year record of success, is an important debating tool in the Sisyphean attempt to de-suck the provision of health care here in the Colonies.

 

[beorhthelm]

*But no incentive to [deny access to healthcare]

except that maybe you arent economically important enough or cant afford the treatment. so most people then. or presumably you'd be happy to have your healthcare from Dr. Nick Riviera? we've decided in the UK we want to have a right to access a free healthcare service. maybe you dont understand how rights are changable?

Tbh There is so much misunderstanding and confusion in these posts, lets just agree to disagree.

funny how you never answer or rebut any of the arguments made against you. you're not agreeing to disagree, you have no answers or enough knowledge to understand why you are wrong. i believe the vernacular is pwned.

now run along and watch some youtube until you find an understanding of real world economics. (probably a bad place to look, so should keep you busy along time)

 

[sten_super]

Healthcare is not a right. It is a service.

And this is where you differ from 99% of posters on this board.

You misunderstand what rights are.

But this is why you receive abuse from people on this board. We do not 'misunderstand', we just have a different viewpoint to you. Being patronising does nothing to reinforce your viewpoint.

You may be right, in that, in the most basic sense of the word, healthcare is not a right. However it is accepted as a sign of a developed economy, and part of a 'civilised society'. The US is the only developed country that does not have some form of public healthcare system (they have public health insurance instead). I (and seemingly the vast majority of people on this board, and I suspect of the population at large) would much rather live in a country that has free (at point of service) healthcare for all and subsidise that through my taxes than rely on health insurance or payment for my own treatment, and live in the lottery that entails.

 

[dingodan]

Healthcare is not a right, however much you would like it to be.

I do respond to the points people make on here. But it is becoming a bore. Here is some reading.

Healthcare Is a Good, Not a Right
By Ron Paul
View all 123 articles by Ron Paul
Published 07/21/09

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more "goods" seem to be becoming "rights" in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a "right" to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available. The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.

 

[terryberry1]

yawn zzzzzzzzzz

 

[sten_super]

Healthcare is not a right, however much you would like it to be.

I do respond to the points people make on here. But it is becoming a bore. Here is some reading.

Nice unbiased article.

I understand the viewpoint that things that education and healthcare should not be considered as rights, and should not be provided by the state. But it is just that; it is an opinion. Repeating it ad nauseum does not make it any more or less valid than any other opinion.

In my view, the perfect society should ensure that no-one goes without food, no-one goes without shelter, and no-one goes without healthcare (for a start; you could also add education, law and order, etc.). Not everyone has the ability to pay for these things; if that means that the rich subsidise the poor, then I think that's a reasonable expectation of the rich, and provides a clear benefit to the most needy.

Incidentally, that article contain some items that are demonstrably untrue (I've picked the most obvious fish in the barrel);

Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

This thread suggests otherwise.

And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

This country does no have legal alternatives to the NHS, and non-vital operations (as well as some vital ones) can be carried out in private hospitals.