| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SoftRevolution
Complicity.
   |
Posted - 2008.03.25 19:43:00 -
[1]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 25/03/2008 19:46:41
 Originally by: Zephyr Rengate
Well the NHS has its failings but it has more benefits. Queue times are the whinage of most papers really, though it depends on what you really need done and where you are living.
I would prefer queue times and a % of my tax going towards my healthcare and that of others then putting my life in the hands of organisations who are out for profit.
I thought the waiting time for cancer treatments was a real issue and had a real impact on survival rates?
This is interesting too.
A "Bismarckian" welfare system is where your healthcare is much more dependent on your own insurance contributions. Not like our system which is much more universal in deciding who is entitled. OFC you have to wonder how sustainable that kind of system is with the job market the way it is now. It's not like you've got a "career" these days.
As regards the US this rates customer satisfaction with the US healthcare system the best (Annex Table 6) but ranked it 37th out of 191 countries for how it performed given the resources allocated to it (At the back, Annex Table 10. See also chapters 2 and 3).
I dunno which of those measures you can regard as being most applicable to the US really. I never get the feeling anything in America is meant to be what I'd regard as "fair".
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
SoftRevolution
Complicity.
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 19:56:00 -
[2]
P147 talks about how they did it and they didn't do it just by counting well off people. It's probably more to do with the measures they used. I'm sort of summarising saying "customer satisfaction".
It's more to do with the general user friendliness of the whole set-up.
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
SoftRevolution
Complicity.
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:14:00 -
[3]
Quote:
7 Sanction their country of origin until they develop healthcare and jobs for their current citizens to stem the flow
How's that going to work?
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
SoftRevolution
Complicity.
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:55:00 -
[4]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 25/03/2008 20:56:21
Originally by: Ilvan
Originally by: KhieIly
Originally by: SoftRevolution
Quote:
7 Sanction their country of origin until they develop healthcare and jobs for their current citizens to stem the flow
How's that going to work?
increase tariffs on imports from them, don't loan them money, don't allow new businesses to move their work there until they come up with a plan to change.
In other words, further hinder their ability to provide the healthcare and jobs they'd need to slow down emigration.
I'm inclined to agree with that to an extent (that extent being the extent to which international trade isn't just rich countries giving poor countries the shaft through the WTO, WB and IMF), althought I do think he raises a really good point about immigration - that it highlights international inequality.
That stuff all costs money.
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
SoftRevolution
Complicity.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:24:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ademaro Imre
Originally by: Cmdr Sy
People should meet the system halfway. Smoking 20 a day and then complaining the waiting list for lung operations is too long is pretty arrogant, but it does happen. It is not unreasonable to discourage it.
I agree with those sentiments. But the health care system in the UK, and everywhere else no matter what system it is - is on the ropes. The government will now be deciding if you deserve healthcare based on your living lifestyle - which will not be limited to smoking in the future. And while you are denied services, you will still be paying for it. If I smoked, my insurance rate would be bumped up a bit, but not denied. Watch as lifestyles, and life mistakes (like frequent speeding tickets) are made to demonize people to deny them medical services or give them extra fees as the government rations healthcare to save it.
Yeah well that's New Labour for you.
"The Third Way" is basically splitting the difference between "It's all your fault" and "I blame society". Therefore anything that's wrong with you is probably half your fault.
Health promotion (nagging people to be healthier) is popular everywhere but especially with the NHS because it's regarded as a way to make the population as a whole healthier on the cheap. This is the job of the NHS. Not to make the individual "customer" happier but to go for the most efficient way of making everyone healthier.
Amusingly evidence suggests that health promotion doesn't actually work and that the health of the poorest people in society is improved more by increasing their income than improving their bad habits but that's a whole other can of worms policy wise.
So what we're left with is the chronically underfunded NHS, the simple reality that "rationing" of one sort or another is always going to be a reality of the NHS (people expect looking after but they also expect to pay low-ish taxes - despite the QQing Britains taxes aren't especially high Europewide), more people coming into Britain and the idea/excuse that if people are unhealthy it's at least partly their fault.
The system could work if there were less people, if less money was ****ed away on stuff that didn't work, if more money was put into the NHS and/or if the NHS could provide the services that people are now going private for so people weren't buying out of the NHS at a rate of knots. I'm just not sure how any of that would work in Britain in 2008.
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
SoftRevolution
Complicity.
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 00:30:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sephra Star
You know whats funny...
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund pretty much is the UN Treasury.
It is not a failed organization at all. The problem is that the UN's publicly stated reason for existence is nothing but a lie. The organization is full on schedule for its true agenda.
If you study the subject you find the technicality of the law in truth represents the citizens of a country as property. The simple truth is that the United States of America is really just a corporation that is in receivership to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and pretty has been for a very long time.
The Bretton Woods organisations were founded to help rebuild after World War 2. They were also intended to short circuit the "financial crisis leads to war" cycle that started the whole thing.
Nothing especially sinister or evil.
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
| |
|