Republicans: NHS is "Owellian and Evil"



FFFFUUUU, that makes no sense, so they are bashing the NHS and prasing the American health care, yet the Americans spend more public money on Health care than the UK yet you need insurance, the Americans are living in a dream world.

He made no effort to praise it only to say too many administrators in the NHS, he should be banned from coming back to the UK and see how he copes in America.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
The fact that the american system is bad does not mean that the NHS is the only or best alternative.

If I wanted to create a universal healthcare system, would I use the NHS model? No I wouldn't. The NHS model is flawed, primarily because it puts too much on the state and creates an effective monopoly on healthcare that benefits neither patients or taxpayers.
Click to expand...

How is it a monopoly on healthcare? There's a plethora of private healthcare services available. I don't see them suffering. They make plenty of money. They have plenty of clients.

And remember, at the end of the day it's all down to consumer choice; letting the market decide. Nobody's forced to use the NHS if they don't want to.
 
Monkey Puzzle said:
Any efficiently run healthcare provider will limit healthcare based upon the budget they have. It happens to be the case that the NHS has a smaller budget than many economies comparable in size to the UK. Had we a larger budget more resources would be available; waiting times would be shorter, treatment times would be shorter, and less cost-effective drugs and treatment would be available, just as it would be in an insurance scheme. The decisions in what treatment is available, as governed by NICE, is fairly sensible in its aproach. It is evidence-based, judging the worthiness of a treatment upon the clinical evidence of the benefits compared to the costs, as should be the case in any sensible healthcare provider with any budget. The controversies arise at the fringe where the cost to benefit is less clear for certain treatments.
Click to expand...

Which is all fine, apart from the simple fact that if we don't agree with their approach to budget constraints (eg what they limit), we can't take our money elsewhere because we are forced to pay for the NHS.

Is it Orwellian to inform the public so that they might know the consequences of ther lifestyle upon their health and make an informed decision of how they live their life based upon that?
Click to expand...

No, it's orwellian to use taxation or legislation to push rather than educate. One of the effects of the NHS setup is that it socialises individual harm, and that is then being used as a means to push legislation/taxation to reduce perceived social harm that is actually a result of other legislation rather the actions of the individual.

Such as?
Click to expand...

Every time they are trying to justify taxation on smoking or drinking? The cost to the NHS is nearly always mentioned. A much better solution is to make it a cost to the individual so the individual is responsible for the consequences of their own risk. Same applies to dangerous sports and pastimes.

Do you not think the healthcare system has a role in disease prevention? Or is that a personal choice(based presumably upon a lack of information, because for those that have the knowledge to comment and advise would be Orwellian state inference, interfering with libertarian, personal ignorance)? Should the evil state not interfere and tell people that certain things are bad for them and will likely cause them disease and suffering? Who's the state to tell people that smoking kills and causes pain and suffering?! It's their right!
Click to expand...

Of course, but the state can and does more than simply educate, it takes action to try and force change.

Again, could you give some specific examples and explain why you think this is the case?
Click to expand...

See anything taxed or banned for health reasons, or the campaigns to implement 'fat taxes', which nearly always reference cost to the NHS.
 
Last edited:
Evangelion said:
How is it a monopoly on healthcare? There's a plethora of private healthcare services available. I don't see them suffering. They make plenty of money. They have plenty of clients.
Click to expand...

Because you can't take your money elsewhere and spend it how you see fit. There may be additional services available, but you still have to be an NHS consumer because you are forced to be, even if that consuming involves giving them money while receiving nothing back in return.

And remember, at the end of the day it's all down to consumer choice; letting the market decide. Nobody's forced to use the NHS if they don't want to.
Click to expand...

But everyone is forced to pay for it. You cannot, in any way, claim that the market is deciding when everyone is forced to pay for the NHS via taxation.
 
Chimerical said:
I never said that the NHS model was ideal, I've said its flawed and has problems a couple of times in this thread but unfortunately that's not what this debate is centered on because this discussion is about comparing the NHS to the American system...which is pointless.

I also wasn't aware that it was the place of an MEP to be advising Americans on what health care they should or should not have. They've got enough of that with Fox News and the Republicans scaremongering and its a big enough internal debate for them to deal with already. Its none of our business and I don't know why he was talking to them about it.
Click to expand...

It's the place of anyone who wishes to act as an advisor to express their opinion, especially if they are invited to (which paying someone to appear certainly qualifies as).

There have been plenty of pro-NHS people invited to speak in the US from the UK as well, they just aren't so controversial over here and as such don't attract news. Getting opinion from source on alternative systems is standard practice.
 
I take the point about US citizens without health insurance being catered for by the "county" hospital system but what about the US equivalent of ordinary GP surgeries?
Many thousands attend every day in the UK for simple investigations and routine management of health conditions.
Does anyone know what the non-hospital primary care system is like in the US?
 
Dolph said:
Because you can't take your money elsewhere and spend it how you see fit. There may be additional services available, but you still have to be an NHS consumer because you are forced to be, even if that consuming involves giving them money while receiving nothing back in return.

But everyone is forced to pay for it. You cannot, in any way, claim that the market is deciding when everyone is forced to pay for the NHS via taxation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I dont see why we should be FORCED into paying if we do not wish to use it. Plenty of other healthcare providers out there. Heck they could even be more cost efficient.

If the NHS is so damn good, then I dont see a problem in it being able to "retain" people into subscribing, even if it were made optional. Right now there is no incentive to improve as much as they can or to cut costs further because they got us by the balls and we're all forced to pay into it. Once you remove this stranglehold, and there exists the possibility of people "opting out" and going elsewhere, you'll suddenly see vast improvements in the NHS.
 
Shortly after my family moved to florida in 2004, my mum had an accident and she broke her hip, they didnt have insurance, but were still taken to the closet large hospital where she was treated as soon as she got through the door and she was out and on her feet inside 3 days.
With a bill for something stupid like $45,000 dollars at the end of it.
Well of course they said we dont have 45k to pay for this, so they talked to a mediator who talked to the surgeon who dropped his fee to $18,000 (from $30,000 or something) then the mediator talked to...........is it the blue cross? they they contributed some towards it, then he talked to the local church run medical charity who also put some towards it.
Eventually he was left with $8k to pay, at something like $5 a month.
 
footman said:
Its part of their business model to be efficient, it increases profits.
However, would they insure people with previously existing conditions? I don't think they do so now.
Click to expand...

Quite a few healthcare companies are non-profit and insure people with pre-existing conditions, Bupa for example.
 
I don't agree with Dolph at all, I think if your working then you should be obligated to contribute towards the NHS whether you are paying for your own private health care or not, if you could opt-out paying money into the NHS then that would ultimately lead to mass privatisation and the NHS would suffer and in turn low-income families health care would suffer, I'm not working just to help myself, we have an obligation to help the country as a whole.
 
Dolph said:
Because you can't take your money elsewhere and spend it how you see fit.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. :confused:

There may be additional services available, but you still have to be an NHS consumer because you are forced to be, even if that consuming involves giving them money while receiving nothing back in return.
Click to expand...

You mean paying taxes? Paying taxes doesn't make me an NHS consumer; it makes me a taxpayer.

But everyone is forced to pay for it. You cannot, in any way, claim that the market is deciding when everyone is forced to pay for the NHS via taxation.
Click to expand...

You seem to be blinded by your own spin. Have you been watching The O'Reilly Factor again?

There's a stack of stuff I pay for via taxation that I'll never use: disability pension, widow's pension, motability allowance, etc. Does this make me a consumer of these benefits? Of course not.

The amount of tax we pay as individuals is not even remotely close to the true cost of the benefits and services provided by the government, so it is utterly nonsensical to complain about it and even more ridiculous to claim that this somehow makes us "consumers" of benefits and services we will never use.

I can choose to visit an NHS dentist or a private dentist; I can choose to visit an NHS doctor or a private doctor. The difference is that my NHS dentist or doctor is already pre-paid by my microscopically small tax contribution, which means that I am receiving their services for next to nothing. Yes, the market decides.

On a related note, I seem to recall you stridently defending the NHS provision of quack medicines like chiropractic and homeopathy. But why in hell should the NHS offer these services these when they have been repeatedly and comprehensively debunked on countless occasions? If you want something to rant about, let's start there.
 
Last edited:
Evangelion said:
Yes you can. :confused:



You mean paying taxes? Paying taxes doesn't make me an NHS consumer; it makes me a taxpayer.



You seem to be blinded by your own spin. Have you been watching The O'Reilly Factor again?
Click to expand...

Every UK taxpayer is forced to pay for the NHS whether they use it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom