Beter start bringing in more ****** and Mohammeds so they can pay into a system that they will never be able to use.

Exact opposite of my experience. I was partially stabilized in the Ambulance and upon arriving in the ER was immediately rolled into a private room and further stabilized.

CT scan was ordered and received within an hour and follow up x-rays within a half hour. WAs allowed to rest till morning when I was discharged with prescriptions for necessary meds.

But, I don't live in a major metropolitan area.

Yeah, a dozen years of Tory rule will do that.

As has been mentioned already, the absolute state of the NHS is by design, not by accident or inherent problems; the Tories want it to be a sh!t-show to be able to start privatising it and basically steal it away from the British public to fund their/their business friends' pockets. There was recently discussion about potentially making GP appointments something that everyone would have to pay for, for example.

I've actually had people scoff at this idea as some kind of excuse, but when I ask them what they think about government involvement in anything their answer is invariably "makes it more convulted and inefficient." "So you think that a privatised system to replace the current one - in part or in whole - would be better?" "Yes." "And do you think that the political party who's entire ethos is that less government = better wouldn't have the same belief?" Crickets. Every time.

Labour are no different, both parties are corporatist Blairites.

This seems to be the plan- import more people.

The trouble is that these people aren't such a great cultural fit and there is a lot of complaint that the imports are taking more from government benefits than they are contributing in taxes and are also more violent and criminal.

Lots of reports of increases of rapes, particularly rapes of underage and young women.

It is supposed to be a big issue in Ireland and Scotland especially- the natives being angry that is.

Three questions that always stumps anti capitalists;

1. At what cost?
2. Compared to what?
3. Who gets to decide?

So you want cheap healthcare? Ok, what are you willing to sacrifice to get it? Do you believe that cheap, top notch, efficient healthcare is possible? If so, then start a healthcare system and do it. No? Then what makes you believe you can do it better, or that it CAN be done better?

It’s absolute arrogance to think that an individual has a solution to ultra complicated process for an entire society. They simultaneously demand perfection from something that will never be perfect.

It’s easier to point out someone’s/something’s flaws than it is to create an actual solution.

Supply demand issue- fix supply among first….


Precious post

Edit not working - above post is regarding US healthcare

I'm not an anti-capitalist.

There is a difference between cheap and fair value. What we have now in the US is extortionate.

single payer = | = government run

Personally I'm for single payer as I believe that healthcare is an area where for profit insurance isn't in the public interest.

For profit insurers have a built in incentive to limit access to care. They make their profit by either denying care or entering into contracts with medical providers and restricting their members to only get services within those contractual agreements.

With nationwide single payer there would be no profit motive for restricting medical care and no incentive to put off preventative care or procedures that could reduce long term costs [pay now vs. spend more later].

Citizens could see any provider at any institution- no artificial constraints to competition at the provider level.

It would be more of a free market than we have right now. Medical providers would be private and could absolutely compete on quality and services to increase market share and realize profits from economies of scale and good management.

The NHS was still miles better under Labour, though. Just look at the trends in waiting times which is the main issue facing the service at the moment. They dropped significantly under Blair and skyrocketed under both Thatcher/Major and the current Tory spell.

There was a point where it was pretty much impossible to find a healthcare system in the world that delivered more per $ spent (per capita) than the NHS.

What did Blair do that cut waiting times?

To the point of what is fair; again, who gets to decide what is fair? In the words of Mises “To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification”. The value of fairness is eradicate from person to person. Then add the “who gets to decide?” question, and that’s how you end up with extremism/socialism/fascism.

Insurance doesn’t deny care, but rather deny payment of certain care. Perhaps that’s what you meant, because it’s very different, ethically and morally. Insurance companies are not legally able to determine what care you actually get, only what they paid for.

Something you need to consider is that demand drives markets. There was a time in the US when there was no insurance. Insurance did not come about until around the early 1900s, and it was in the form of auto insurance. Most people chose not to buy insurance, which meant there was no demand for it and therefore very few insurance companies, and extremely cheap rates. Today, there is a high demand for health insurance, because of how we live our lives. Most people do not save. Family units are not as tight. These two things create demand for other things, like insurance. As long as the markets are driving the demand, the results will be the system you get. If everyone chose not to buy insurance, insurance companies would go out of business and you would have the system that YOU desire. In other words, a society drives the market, which is the moral and ethical dilemma of an individual choosing the system for everyone.

The healthcare system itself is the same process. Hospitals and clinics change their practices based on customer feedback. Customer feedback tells them “give us the fastest, most efficient healthcare possible”. This creates higher costs, but the customers getting what they want. If people are willing to wait, which is a sacrificed/trade off, then costs could be brought down.

All that said, I do agree that fiduciary transactions should be between two parties. A third-party upset the balance of value assessment. If you have two people, they can agree or disagree on a value. But if you throw in a third (government, insurance…), one of those parties will naturally get screwed. Another example of this is unions. However, the thing to understand is that one party agreed to have the third-party be a representative for them. When you buy insurance, you agree to allow the insurance company to be your representative in assessing and determining the value. A union is the same. There is risk involved in this decision, though. With insurance companies, the risk is, they won’t pay for some thing, pay, too little, etc, but that was the agreement you made. With the union, the labor agrees to allow the union to put a value on their labor and demand it from the employer. Regardless of which scenario you are considering, the third-party is the one who always comes out on top. The unions end up screwing both the labor and the employer, the insurance companies end up screwing the patient and the hospital, and the government just screws everyone

Capitalism ends up being the most ethical, moral, and humane system, because it allows the most amount of people in a society to decide what they want and need. The system might not seem fair, but it is the most fair. The alternative is letting one group, or an individual decide, for everyone, which is the least fair. To put it into perspective, would you rather let one person decide for 100, or would you rather let 75 people decide for 100?

When Hunt was Health Secretary there was stories (Private Eye I seem to renember) about how the private companies weren't interested as too much had been run down. Cue a brief cash injection to tempt them back.

I'm unsure how Covid affected the NHS in this regard. The inherent problem is an ageing population and the NHS being asked to cover more and more treatments. The solution would be an adult discussion where the implications were costed but sadly this is politics. Anything the Tories suggest which may be pragmatic will get shouted down and Labour will have difficulty managing the same situation.

Any long term solution will be avoided as the danger is that the other team will be in power when the improvements start to appear. In many ways the sad state of the NHS and the discussions about it are a comment on the state of politics.

We have a similar situation that mirrors what you described above.
If party D solves a problem then party R is against the solution and if Party R has a solution, then party D is not in favor of it.
As Michael Jackson used to say, "they don't really care about us"
They do care about their donors though.

Not a mad conspiracy theory when it's part of a repeated pattern....

Why did things get worse shortly after the NHS took over? Was that sabotage by the right too?

Leftists; destroying lives since 1930.

Loaded question and then some; give proof if you're going to make this claim - which, I'm sure, will take into account the realities of post-war Britain being one of continued rationing and all the health implicatiosn that went along with it.

No way, Canada doesn't even have any private healthcare options? Here in the UK we still have private hospitals, GPs etc - seems mad to me to not even have the option of it.

Got worse, eh? Given the Tories have cut 17K beds from the system since 2010, I wonder why that may be? The introduction of the NHS never made things worse, the brits were justifiably proud of the NHS for a long time.

Care to tell me why the US spends more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP (by a country mile) than any other comparable first world nation forindisputablyworse outcomes? And the poms are still getting better outcomes than the USA!

Try and respond without using ideological push button trigger words if you can.

I posted the numbers in an earlier post. The source is my economic books. Hard to link books, so I posted some basic numbers. You can verify those numbers if you like. I’m not digging through the internet to finds numbers I already know.Why did they cut beds?

We knew it wasn’t sustainable from the start, but you’re saying it’s for other reasons?

It’s amazing to me how many non educated individuals think things are so obvious, but when you actually educate yourself, suddenly you realize nothing is quite as obvious as you thought.

Here's some numbers for you....

Lots of good fun stats.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/ran...ercent_of_GDP/

Why don't you tell me why you think it is, given I've already said why earlier in the thread.




It’s amazing to me how many non educated individuals think things are so obvious, but when you actually educate yourself, suddenly you realize nothing is quite as obvious as you thought.[/QUOTE]

Ok? What’s your point? You posted an arbitrary set of numbers. Cool?

Arbitrary? The numbers show the US spends WAAAAAY more as a percentage of GDP for worse health outcomes than any other comparable income country (who all have evil socialised health care). How do you look at that and think "win!". You're spending close to 50% more than Germany (the next highest) for worse outcomes.

Yes, the argument can be made that Americans have a lot of fat slobs who don't take care of themselves, but like I said, it's every other comparable nation. Surely, at some point if you're being honest with yourself, you have to think there's something wrong somewhere in the system.

Soooo, you’re admitting there are holes in your theory? That there are contributing factors that the GDP doesn’t account for and other factors that contribute to outcomes?

Whelp, my work here is done, gentleman.

No, because like their queen Oprah said, old white people need to die.
They will applaud that minorities and trans surgeries will be pushed to the front of the line in the name of equality while grandma dies.

I was told i had to wear a mask to save grandma though...

Not a theory. Just stats.

Most comparable income countries have an increasing obesity epidemic as well. Do you truly believe that accounts for the giant disparity? I'd like to see some supporting figures to back this up if you have them. I am more than willing to be swayed by concrete reliable data.

But you're right, these things are complicated, and there are a range of factors. So it may not be as simple as pointing at the NHS and saying "socialism did this"....

Because socialism doesnt work

Duh

Well said. Being a politician at this time in history must be the most fun troll job you could have.

The numbers you posted about extra admin staff? And that Weightaholic pointed out applies to private hospitals for billing staff?

That's hardly proof of the NHS ruining lives. Hell, it's not really proof of anything, other than that, unsurpisingly, when the healthcare systems opens up to the entire nation that it'll need to be supported with more people to make sure it can run properly, which is a no-brainer.

Re read what I wrote. Let me spell it out for you; the NHS decreased the number of patients it was capable of seeing by 25%. Admin was necessary to deal with the bureaucracy (additional paperwork, processes, hoops…). In other words, they made the system, more complicated, time consuming, while simultaneously decreasing the number of patients they could see. Administrators do not increase patient flow.

All it took was a crisis for the whole thing to come crashing down. Government systems are not flexible, whereas, in a free market, the system is more capable of adapting, because it’s more autonomous. Autonomy comes from physicians and nurses, not administrators. It actually restricts autonomy because it sets more rules and regulations. Now imagine the population, growing and the healthcare system, not keeping up because it has to continue growing its administration out of proportion. Then imagine no flexibility, lack of medical staff, and a huge influx of patients, all while being micromanaged and restricted on how they can adapt.