Bigfatbillsfan Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 His point was that Germans can chose their doctors & we can't. I was pointing out that this hasn't been my experience. And I'm middle class & most jobs I've had can be obtained within a couple of years by anyone of at least average intelligence who's responsible enough to show up for work. I've been one of the people that your disconnected & out of touch theories are based on. I'm sure that's true if you were able to get them. We can always take the stand that any American can see any doctor so long as they can afford it. However, she is not limited by her ability to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Actually did pretty well in economics. We studied a lit of the ideas of a fella named Keynes. Sorry if I forgot to mention that I'm impressed. If that was your proessor's focus I'm sure you aced it. Too bad you didn't also learn Smith or study Austrian economics, but rather specialized in one highly controversial, largely discredited economic theory that primarily relates to economic down-turns. And for the record, Keynes wasn't even a Keynesian as it's understood today. Further, Keynes conceded the need for the kind of tinkering he proposed to be done correctly by wise men who thought "rightly", not by whatever (*^*&%^$^#was able to win a majority vote from a predominantly ignorant electorate. I'm sure that's true if you were able to get them. We can always take the stand that any American can see any doctor so long as they can afford it. However, she is not limited by her ability to pay. Ha Ha. The point I was making that the old hippy is too obtuse to see is merely that this luxurious access to top doctors at a reasonable price is not reserved to the upper class. The reality is that it is a relatively small minority that can't get it. But he wants to misrepresent the problem that he claims to know how to solve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Asked and answered by chicot. Don't know his basis for judgement but I have a large family contingent in the uk and can attest to their general conscensus that the us system is nearly barbaric and uncivilized Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) Asked and answered by chicot. Don't know his basis for judgement but I have a large family contingent in the uk and can attest to their general conscensus that the us system is nearly barbaric and uncivilized Oh good. Your family approves. That answers my question perfectly. Regarding your mouth piece chicot, does he have any data to back up his claim? Edited July 30, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Asked and answered by chicot. Don't know his basis for judgement but I have a large family contingent in the uk and can attest to their general conscensus that the us system is nearly barbaric and uncivilized This coming from a society that goes to the dentist about as often as they host the Olympics. The Mexicans actually call bad teeth "Dente d'angles. So what about our system is barbaric? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Asked and answered by chicot. Don't know his basis for judgement but I have a large family contingent in the uk and can attest to their general conscensus that the us system is nearly barbaric and uncivilized Most likely they were talking about a good portion of the US population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Oh good. Your family approves. That answers my question perfectly. Regarding your mouth piece chicot, does he have any data to back up his claim? Which one - regarding the British population preferring the NHS to the US system or that there are plenty of people over here who can afford private care but choose not to? As I've lived in the UK for virtually all of my life I'm probably closer to this issue than most on this board (just like you'd know far more than I do about how Americans feel about gun ownership). As to the first point, there's really no question - poll after poll show that the population most definitely do not want creeping privatisation of the NHS and all the major parties go out of their way to reassure the public that the NHS is "safe in their hands". Any party that went into an election offering to replace the NHS with the US system would be wiped out. As to the second, I know plenty of people who can afford private medicine but choose not to. Hardly a wide sample I know, but sufficient I think to refute the claim that everyone who can afford private care does so, which was the point I was replying to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Which one - regarding the British population preferring the NHS to the US system or that there are plenty of people over here who can afford private care but choose not to? As I've lived in the UK for virtually all of my life I'm probably closer to this issue than most on this board (just like you'd know far more than I do about how Americans feel about gun ownership). As to the first point, there's really no question - poll after poll show that the population most definitely do not want creeping privatisation of the NHS and all the major parties go out of their way to reassure the public that the NHS is "safe in their hands". Any party that went into an election offering to replace the NHS with the US system would be wiped out. As to the second, I know plenty of people who can afford private medicine but choose not to. Hardly a wide sample I know, but sufficient I think to refute the claim that everyone who can afford private care does so, which was the point I was replying to. I missed this earlier. My sample is fairly small as well; my company has a presence in the UK and our workers are told to first go to the NHS if they get sick, and then once diagnosed to use the private system. I also had a Brit friend, who supported the Brit system because of the dual public/private aspect, who said if you had any real problem, like cancer or need for a knee replacement, to go private because otherwise you'll be waiting a while for treatment which, in the case of cancer, could be the difference between life and death. I'd definitely prefer the UK system to the Canadian system where you're not allowed to get private treatment because your survival is unfair to the poor. Edited July 31, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Which one - regarding the British population preferring the NHS to the US system or that there are plenty of people over here who can afford private care but choose not to? As I've lived in the UK for virtually all of my life I'm probably closer to this issue than most on this board (just like you'd know far more than I do about how Americans feel about gun ownership). As to the first point, there's really no question - poll after poll show that the population most definitely do not want creeping privatisation of the NHS and all the major parties go out of their way to reassure the public that the NHS is "safe in their hands". Any party that went into an election offering to replace the NHS with the US system would be wiped out. As to the second, I know plenty of people who can afford private medicine but choose not to. Hardly a wide sample I know, but sufficient I think to refute the claim that everyone who can afford private care does so, which was the point I was replying to. Why do you think they choose not to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Which one - regarding the British population preferring the NHS to the US system or that there are plenty of people over here who can afford private care but choose not to? As I've lived in the UK for virtually all of my life I'm probably closer to this issue than most on this board (just like you'd know far more than I do about how Americans feel about gun ownership). As to the first point, there's really no question - poll after poll show that the population most definitely do not want creeping privatisation of the NHS and all the major parties go out of their way to reassure the public that the NHS is "safe in their hands". Any party that went into an election offering to replace the NHS with the US system would be wiped out. As to the second, I know plenty of people who can afford private medicine but choose not to. Hardly a wide sample I know, but sufficient I think to refute the claim that everyone who can afford private care does so, which was the point I was replying to. Finely a real answer. But my next question is- Do they really know anything about the alternatives? This cradle to grave thing has been going on since labor took over in 1945. Is it possible that people just are comfortable with the way things are since they where children or sit back and say there are problem's here? I go with comfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I missed this earlier. My sample is fairly small as well; my company has a presence in the UK and our workers are told to first go to the NHS if they get sick, and then once diagnosed to use the private system. I also had a Brit friend, who supported the Brit system because of the dual public/private aspect, who said if you had any real problem, like cancer or need for a knee replacement, to go private because otherwise you'll be waiting a while for treatment which, in the case of cancer, could be the difference between life and death. I'd definitely prefer the UK system to the Canadian system where you're not allowed to get private treatment because your survival is unfair to the poor. Cancer survival rates are dismal in the UK (and other socialized medicine countries). And you have to wait until you're incapacitated to get a hip or knee replaced, or a cataract addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 Cancer survival rates are dismal in the UK (and other socialized medicine countries). And you have to wait until you're incapacitated to get a hip or knee replaced, or a cataract addressed. outcomes data to support? or are we just to take your self serving word for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 outcomes data to support? or are we just to take your self serving word for it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html As for the other stuff, that's well-known and fits-in with your rationing strategy. Did you really not know this? Or is socialized medicine just self-serving for you and that's all that matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html As for the other stuff, that's well-known and fits-in with your rationing strategy. Did you really not know this? Or is socialized medicine just self-serving for you and that's all that matters? you might want to include this in your analysis. or perhaps even the original lancet article and associated editorial comments. and maybe this could explain some of the differential. interesting that the uspstf is recommending less screening, not more. Edited July 31, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 you might want to include this in your analysis. or perhaps even the original lancet article and associated editorial comments. and maybe this could explain some of the differential. interesting that the uspstf is recommending less screening, not more. For starters, the article I linked was from 2007. Your first link above is from 2002, and is British officials trying to cover themselves. Cancer survival rates have been and remain poor. It's a fact. As for the 2nd link, so now we're going to explain differences? You casually dismissed it when I talked about how infant mortality was only higher in the US versus other countries because the US includes a lot of infants that other countries do not; or how the US has the worst rate of obesity and that adds significant costs; or the different population than other countries; or subsidizing health care advances for the rest of the world; or higher taxes in other countries being funneled to health insurance and not accounted for. Look birddog, if this goes the way it was designed, I'll be rolling in the dough. The facts are that money will be funneled to other groups, care will be substandard, and this will bankrupt the country and become insolvent probably a few years after Medicare and Medicaid are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Why do you think they choose not to? Because private care is seen as unnecessary and, in most cases, it is. If you are ill or are injured in an accident then you can receive pretty decent treatment from the NHS. Sure, you can go private and get a nicer bed and better food (maybe hotter nurses ) but there won't be that much difference in the actual treatment. The NHS is not all things to all men - given the rising costs of healthcare and medical advances it can't possibly cover absolutely everything and for things that are deemed to be not a priority you will have to wait, but for the purpose it was designed for, that is to provide a certain level of care to the entire population, it does a pretty good job. There's also the fact that we all pay for the NHS via taxation. Why pay extra for something that you don't actually need? Finely a real answer. But my next question is- Do they really know anything about the alternatives? This cradle to grave thing has been going on since labor took over in 1945. Is it possible that people just are comfortable with the way things are since they where children or sit back and say there are problem's here? I go with comfortable. You could argue that but you could also use that same argument about resistance to changing the US system. Over here, healthcare is seen very much as a basic human right and that everyone should be entitled to a certain level of care whether they live in a cardboard box or a mansion. Any attempt to move away from that basic principle would encounter massive resistance. Of course there are problems. There are always going to be problems with every healthcare system in the world. However, you said it yourself - people are comfortable with the way things are. Why are they comfortable? If lots of people were encountering these problems then you would expect them to be less comfortable. The fact is that most people find that the NHS meets their needs and also fits their view of what a healthcare system should be. Edited August 1, 2012 by chicot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Because private care is seen as unnecessary and, in most cases, it is. If you are ill or are injured in an accident then you can receive pretty decent treatment from the NHS. Sure, you can go private and get a nicer bed and better food (maybe hotter nurses ) but there won't be that much difference in the actual treatment. The NHS is not all things to all men - given the rising costs of healthcare and medical advances it can't possibly cover absolutely everything and for things that are deemed to be not a priority you will have to wait, but for the purpose it was designed for, that is to provide a certain level of care to the entire population, it does a pretty good job. There's also the fact that we all pay for the NHS via taxation. Why pay extra for something that you don't actually need? You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and said "people like free ****" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and said "people like free ****" I thought I just explained that it's not free. Oh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I thought I just explained that it's not free. Oh well... It's paid for with taxes. Most people will consider any service that they get paid for by taxes as free. Take a survey. You live there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 It's paid for with taxes. Most people will consider any service that they get paid for by taxes as free. Take a survey. You live there. and they would be incorrect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts