|
freebooter posted:Funny how lots of people who are ostensibly left-wing and open-minded will go full-on UKIP as soon as an outsider dares criticise anything about the UK. Na, UKIP hate you because you're foreign. We hate you because you're a dickhead. Rev nailed it though, you spend more and get worse results. Why exactly should we take up the Aussie system?
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:As for what people spend it on, well, essentially you're saying money itself is problematic because people can spend it on things, which is true, but unless we want the government controlling every single purchase people make then the solution is probably more robust social care, not imposing draconian controls on people's spending habits. The only bad thing you can do with money economically speaking is bury it in the Cayman Islands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I did register for a doctor when I first moved here. Then I moved house. Give up mate, they've already decided you're a bourgeois pig who hates poor people. You'll get no interesting comments now. For what it's worth I see your point but unless you're espousing the complete nationalisation of UK plc in this thread you'll get very little slack. I lived in Aus and the healthcare system is very good and actually performs better than the NHS in some areas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
freebooter posted:£70 =/= £15 Nor is it the '£300' you were quoting earlier. So either pay up so you don't have to spend time rubbing shoulders with the poors, shut up, or gently caress off back to oz. mfcrocker posted:Na, UKIP hate you because you're foreign. We hate you because you're a dickhead. Truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Given your own discomfort with how crowded A&E was and your stated desire to pay a little bit extra to get away from the less well off do you think you might be projecting a bit in that regard? I'm not trying to "get away" from the less well-off, I'm suggesting that the more well-off can afford to spend slightly more to lift the strain on the system. I earn 20,000 a year. I'm not Warren Buffet. But I can absolutely afford to spend more than $0 on my healthcare, and in fairness, I should. As others have pointed out, I do, by tax, but that's the case in Australia as well. You know I'm not really suggesting major reforms, I'm having a whinge and comparing the NHS to my country's system because I had a lovely day. If was going to suggest a single reform it would be that people shouldn't have to register at GPs. As far as I can tell they only do it so they have some control over people skipping appointments, but it seems like they do that anyway. Oh and Labour doesn't hate immigrants, just refugees, and only those that come by boats. Really fascinating 15-year ideological issue, could write a thesis on it. mfcrocker posted:Rev nailed it though, you spend more and get worse results. Why exactly should we take up the Aussie system? Apart from that fact that life expectancy is determined by far more than how much is spent on healthcare (off the top of my head, Australia is more obese than the UK and certainly has a higher sun-related cancer rate), those figures are six years out of date - as of 2012 Australia and the UK had the same life expectancy. But I don't know why I posted that because I don't want to get drawn into a nationalistic dick-comparing contest. There are lots and lots of things I like about the UK, which the UK does better than Australia, and I'm going to keep living here for now even if I prefer Australia's healthcare system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Tbh I thought it was an overreaction too, but I think people were reading classism from your posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Apart from that fact that life expectancy is determined by far more than how much is spent on healthcare (off the top of my head, Australia is more obese than the UK and certainly has a higher sun-related cancer rate), those figures are six years out of date - as of 2012 Australia and the UK had the same life expectancy. Sure, except the WHO ranks the NHS above the Australian system as well. I don't really care about nationalistic dickwaving either, it's just that you are proposing a system that is judged to be strictly a) worse and b) more expensive. E: It appears to be from "The Commonwealth Fund" actually, but is built on WHO and OECD data. It's also the story told in the last WHO ratings I can find. mfcrocker fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
I'd always assumed registering at a GP is so they have your medical records. I think a lot of people are defensive of the NHS because it is under attack a lot lately and losing it would be a tragedy. Hope you feel better soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I'm not trying to "get away" from the less well-off, I'm suggesting that the more well-off can afford to spend slightly more to lift the strain on the system. They already do, it's called "taxation". (Also if a nurse can treat your condition I'd have thought a pharmacist could to so you could have popped into a Boots to get it sorted)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:Sure, except the WHO ranks the NHS above the Australian system as well. Fair enough. I am only comparing GP stuff, I have limited experience with the public hospital system in Australia, and at the end of the day hospitals are more important than GPs. hookerbot 5000 posted:I'd always assumed registering at a GP is so they have your medical records. You can't get an appointment unless you're registered? I thought? That's what they've been telling me, anyway. Which effectively limits you to one GP. I've actually been to a few which have signs saying "if you miss 3 appointments you will be deregistered," which begs the question, what are you meant to do then? Move house? goddamnedtwisto posted:They already do, it's called "taxation". Nah, it's a procedure. I assume it can go wrong, because the walk-in nurse said they legally can't do it, only a GP clinic nurse can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
freebooter posted:off the top of my head, Australia is more obese than the UK How dare you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I'm not trying to "get away" from the less well-off, I'm suggesting that the more well-off can afford to spend slightly more to lift the strain on the system. Dramatically altering how the NHS is funded and altering who has access to what for free is a huge reform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I'm not trying to "get away" from the less well-off, I'm suggesting that the more well-off can afford to spend slightly more to lift the strain on the system. Maybe you don't realise it, but you are suggesting major reforms - the entire basis of the NHS is that it's publicly funded and free at the point of use (with a couple of exceptions like dental care), and that it meets the needs of everyone equally, no matter what their circumstances. Even if you're not advocating a two-tier system where people who can afford it get to express lane past everyone else, you're introducing a funding system where some people explicitly pay more than others at the point of use. It's dangerous because it allows poor and vulnerable people to be seen as a drain on the NHS, which is a political lever that can be used to move towards that two (or more)-tier system, pushing of the funding burden onto the patient and justifying 'more choice in how they spend their money', i.e. privatisation and the dismantling of the public system. Which is why everyone's bristling at the idea, it's not the first time it's been floated Plus it discourages people from getting things checked out, because of fear and guilt, or shame ('oh you don't have to pay then?'), or because they are meant to pay and they don't feel they can afford it. That hurts preventative care and leads to wider and costlier problems - the NHS has been repeatedly found to be the most efficient healthcare system in the world, y'know? The problem is not lack of funding by individuals
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
I still don't understand the story, I've been in exactly the same situation, miles away from the GP I was registered to, and I still got seen at the drop in centre.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Plus it discourages people from getting things checked out, because of fear and guilt, or shame ('oh you don't have to pay then?'), or because they are meant to pay and they don't feel they can afford it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Yeah, these sorts of reforms are already being proposed.Private Eye No. 1372, 'Medicine Balls' posted:Is giving patients with chronic diseases their own health budgets to buy the care they need a good idea? It's certainly got Simon Stevens, NHS England's new chief executive, excited. The reason you're getting all these hostile responses is because, perhaps accidentally, you're touching on the ongoing process of NHS privatisation which this thread is mostly rather livid about. This is the current issue of Private Eye, incidentally. I'd quote the whole thing but not only is it quite long but I'm typing it. Obliterati fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Private health care hurts people. Seriously. If everyone, poor and rich alike had to use the NHS you can guarantee it would be loving excellent. If the Prime Minister and the Queen had to go to NHS hospitals you can guarantee that they would be the best hospitals in the world, bar none. Paying for stuff like private rooms or whatever may seem like a harmless bonus but all it really does is go towards a tiered system where money can get you better service, rather than what the NHS should be about which is great service for all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Segregating the poor into a system for their own good is not the point of the NHS. A tier made specifically for the poor would soon become seen in just the same light as JSA and other benefits, or council housing- immoral, disgusting, poor quality and not worth keeping. If you are still confused, please read the first page of the first leaflet concerning the NHS, which specifically mentions that it is not restricted to the poor, and it is not a charity. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/The_New_National_Health_Service_Leaflet_1948.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Same deal with Social housing, unfortunately. It was supposed to be that: Social housing, for everyone, instead it became a byword for 'poor' where real people get onto the property ladder because of reasons. So now we're in a situation where private property is being propped up at all costs and any more social housing isn't being built because it may interfere with the real property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I'm not trying to "get away" from the less well-off, I'm suggesting that the more well-off can afford to spend slightly more to lift the strain on the system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
freebooter if you're still reading, I know this is not a lot of help now, but... If, once you're registered, there's ever a situation where you need something done by the practice nurse urgently, but there isn't any space, ask them to give you a letter to take to the local hospital. Lots of practices don't have a nurse, so there's usually a walk-in clinc at local hospitals for the kinds of (non-diagnosis) services they provide, like taking blood or helping with dressings. You will need a letter from your GP because they'll want to check up on you or book you back in later if it's a scheduling problem etc. GPs are lovely, but you really don't want them to be doing these kinds of things anyway. Your nurse will do these kinds of things very, very regularly, whereas your GP might only get to jab someone once or twice a year. Your toe, dick, bum or pilonidal cyst will thank you the next day. Also, don't forget that your GP will have an out of hours line too and they can fax prescriptions to places like the supermarket (if your pharmacy's not open) or help speed up triage in A&E and arrange transport if it's a bit more serious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Car Stranger posted:I was under the impression that this happens via National Insurance. Yeah but it's not as progressive a tax as income: - if you earn more than £153 a week and up to £805 a week, you pay 12% of the amount you earn between £153 and £805 - if you earn more than £805 a week, you also pay 2% of all your earnings over £805 This is almost a flat tax since it just goes from 12% to 14% edit: but nonetheless, I'm sure they make up any shortfalls through income tax which itself is progressive. Xachariah fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I earn 20,000 a year. I'm not Warren Buffet. But I can absolutely afford to spend more than $0 on my healthcare, and in fairness, I should. As others have pointed out, I do well glad that's cleared up then ps gently caress whoever pointed out the cheaper availability of flucloxacillin on the last page. i had to take that a few months back and now resent the price of not-quite-one-pint wasted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Very few politicians will dare argue against such a grand scheme to "trust the people", and if the people decide to buy all their healthcare from private providers rather than the NHS, it'll be the cleverest Trojan horse to get private providers a slice of the NHS cake yet invented. Am I missing something with this? This is how privatisation of services like healthcare usually works, give people 'choice' and 'options' and the ability to spend 'their money', then wealthy business interests use the usual techniques (including running at a loss for a while so they're cheaper) to capture the market. It's less a clever Trojan horse and more of a  Let's not forget the head of NHS England, the guy actually chosen to lead the NHS with his 'international experience', was at the top level of UnitedHealth Group - owner of the largest private healthcare company in the U.S. His 'international experience' is in working against universal public healthcare
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
I say ban all private healthcare for non cosmetic procedures, and then we'll see the NHS polished to a beautiful gleam. Same with loving public schools.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Rolled Cabbage posted:freebooter if you're still reading, I know this is not a lot of help now, but... Thanks, this is good to know. Ddraig posted:Private health care hurts people. Seriously. If everyone, poor and rich alike had to use the NHS you can guarantee it would be loving excellent. If the Prime Minister and the Queen had to go to NHS hospitals you can guarantee that they would be the best hospitals in the world, bar none. I would actually 1000 times be in favour of this over what I've been saying. If only.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
I've always wanted to say that MPs and such should be banned from havibg private health cover. Though how, a full on ban for all private healthcare is even better. The ammount of people getting rich off the NHS carve up is loving horrible. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Am I missing something with this? This is how privatisation of services like healthcare usually works, give people 'choice' and 'options' and the ability to spend 'their money', then wealthy business interests use the usual techniques (including running at a loss for a while so they're cheaper) to capture the market. It's less a clever Trojan horse and more of a I don't think you are; remember though that the Eye's readership has a very large small-c conservative contingent who are generally unaware that this stuff is happening unless they really pay attention to columns like this one. Some folks need it made clear to them if they're not familiar with the usual pattern of privatisation. It's most likely a reference to the fact that this example isn't so much allowing private companies to do their thing as it is a direct withdrawal of NHS funds to give to outfits that are, in many cases, heavily invested in (mostly after the last election) by parliamentarians. The NHS is literally being forced to subsidise both its own destruction and the retirement homes of corrupt politicians. Obliterati fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Bozza posted:I say ban all private healthcare, and then we'll see the NHS polished to a beautiful gleam. Allow the NHS to charge Cost + 50% for so-called elective surgery, the 50% profit goes to the general NHS funding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Yeah I see what you mean about the readership - it's just the same kind of thing as say school vouchers where you're effectively taking some funding and saying 'well... you can have this if people want you to...' knowing full well that some people absolutely won't be going with the the public system anymore (if they even were in the first place), and other people can be won over with promises and glossy marketing. I guess I was giving the readers a bit too much credit maybe! But yeah, this needs bringing up at every opportunity, especially the Lords' involvement. I'm not sure it will matter though, there's a serious hatchet job going on with the NHS's reputation, it feels like a lot of people would go private if they had the opportunity. Also, what's the deal with the health lottery and postcode lottery? Seems a bit weird to name them both after negative things. "They're playing Russian Roulette, why aren't you!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Allow the NHS to charge Cost + 50% for so-called elective surgery, the 50% profit goes to the general NHS funding. Er you need to be a bit more careful about saying that for elective procedures, elective doesn't mean unnecessary it just means non-urgent. Edit: Oh hey I can see the new newbie avatars, farewell babyfaces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:The NHS charge is very expensive. Generic drugs are far cheaper in US, of all places. So cheap people buy them online from Canada.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Yeah I see what you mean about the readership - it's just the same kind of thing as say school vouchers where you're effectively taking some funding and saying 'well... you can have this if people want you to...' knowing full well that some people absolutely won't be going with the the public system anymore (if they even were in the first place), and other people can be won over with promises and glossy marketing. I guess I was giving the readers a bit too much credit maybe! The great thing about the Eye is that even though it's run by a bunch of Tory-voting public schoolboys it's unparallelled in its coverage of UK corruption. Pretty much the only real journalists left who aren't internet-based. I've said it in this thread several times but really, it's good; it's usually on a corruption story six months before anyone else (not that the Eye is ever credited as a source). It is impossible to be a regular Eye reader and believe the government is honest at any level, and said corruption is one of the few issues you can unite pretty much everyone on. There are also cartoons. Re: the Health Lottery, the gimmick is that a percentage of profits are supposed to be donated to health causes. However, to no-one's surprise - it's owned by Richard Desmond after all and is regularly plugged in the Express with no acknowledgement of the conflict of interest - it gives substantially less to charity than the National Lottery does, the difference being sucked up as profit, and it also refuses to pay duty on the proceeds in the same way the real Lottery does (for legal purposes it's not actually a lottery and thus exempt from the National Lottery Act 1993). Camelot took them to court but it got thrown out, quelle surprise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:So cheap people buy them online from Canada. That's for brand name drugs which the NHS and insurers go out of their way to not cover because they are stupidly expensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:The great thing about the Eye is that even though it's run by a bunch of Tory-voting public schoolboys it's unparallelled in its coverage of UK corruption. Pretty much the only real journalists left who aren't internet-based. I've said it in this thread several times but really, it's good; it's usually on a corruption story six months before anyone else (not that the Eye is ever credited as a source). It is impossible to be a regular Eye reader and believe the government is honest at any level, and said corruption is one of the few issues you can unite pretty much everyone on. It should also be noted that whilst they hammer on about government corruption and incompetence it generally doesn't lead to the conclusion that what is needed is less government and more private enterprise. They also hammer on about corruption, back stabbing and back scratching in all kinds of other spheres. In The City is generally as worthwhile a read as Rotten Boroughs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Re: the Health Lottery, the gimmick is that a percentage of profits are supposed to be donated to health causes. However, to no-one's surprise - it's owned by Richard Desmond after all and is regularly plugged in the Express with no acknowledgement of the conflict of interest - it gives substantially less to charity than the National Lottery does, the difference being sucked up as profit, and it also refuses to pay duty on the proceeds in the same way the real Lottery does (for legal purposes it's not actually a lottery and thus exempt from the National Lottery Act 1993). Camelot took them to court but it got thrown out, quelle surprise. Oh nice. Ironic naming then. I was wondering how it was even allowed to run, but I guess that explains that! Cheers for the sources too
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
OK, I'm almost starting to feel sorry for the Lib Dems now. Almost, but not quite.  quote:The so-called Hackney Heroine has accused the Liberal Democrat party of “underhand racism” and of holding “Neanderthal views on diversity”, as she announced her decision not to run as Party President.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Munin posted:It should also be noted that whilst they hammer on about government corruption and incompetence it generally doesn't lead to the conclusion that what is needed is less government and more private enterprise. Absolutely true: they're post-war conservatives, not neoliberals. There's also Street of Shame, which takes apart mainstream newspapers and individual journalists (turns out a lot of them are writing articles plugging relatives' businesses and writing flattering articles about shareholders - by no means any better in the broadsheets than the tabloids). They also take a pretty aggressive line on unpaid internships in the media. baka kaba posted:Oh nice. Ironic naming then. I was wondering how it was even allowed to run, but I guess that explains that! Cheers for the sources too No worries. Amusingly enough, I know Private Eye did a bunch of stuff on this: they're just terrible at internet, paywall aside, and it's a lot easier to Google than it is to dig through the pile of back issues. They hate Desmond with a passion: he's often referred to as 'the pornographer' (they also enjoy winding up Paul Dacre and Alan Rusbridger). Basically the Health Lottery is literally bad for the health of the country. Camelot are no saints but they're a drat sight better than anything with Desmond's paws on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Irregardless of who runs Private Eye and their beliefs, it's also rather excellent in that it allows journalists who are stuck working for lovely rags and who want to do proper news to source stories that don't fit the paper's line. I believe Private Eye gets a lot of its material from journalists working on other papers who would never be allowed to print what they've found in their 'main job'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
They also have the Paul Foot Award which does a good job highlighting any actual journalism that does go on in the mainstream press. Also, as Obliterati said The Private Eye as an enterprise indeed has no feel at all for the digital space in general though. Their column on the advertising world has only barely managed to acknowledge that digital advertising exist these days for example. Not to mention their previous relentless poopooing of anything multimedia and any attempt of publications moving into the digital space.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 23:06
|
|