Save the NHS!

RDM · 14 Jun 2012 at 10:09

Craterloads said:
Yes but you have to remember who it is that is suggesting changes. Its like the "no fly zone" over Libya, before you know it were a private army for hire.

If it was anyone other than the Torries suggesting changes i think a lot would be more comfortable.

Yeah, bloody Torys, how dare they have a limited scope miltary action rather than long lasting ones with massive intaglement and lots of miltary casualties. I would rather have a dozen Libya type engagements than one Afghanistan or Iraq type engagement...

I love political blindness, partisanship really makes politics a much better topic of conversation! Stuff the merits of any decision, I can decide if it is good or bad depending on the colour of the rosette of the person suggesting it!

Craterloads · 14 Jun 2012 at 10:28

RDM said:
Yeah, bloody Torys, how dare they have a limited scope miltary action rather than long lasting ones with massive intaglement and lots of miltary casualties. I would rather have a dozen Libya type engagements than one Afghanistan or Iraq type engagement...

I love political blindness, partisanship really makes politics a much better topic of conversation! Stuff the merits of any decision, I can decide if it is good or bad depending on the colour of the rosette of the person suggesting it!

The point i was making is the "no fly zone" was a lie, and it was. It was just a cover for full military engagement whilst we were told it was just to stop Gaddafi from using aerial attacks.

Hence why when the Tories suggest "changes" to the NHS it’s not so far fetched to believe it’s just a cover for more drastic things to be done.

RDM · 14 Jun 2012 at 10:31

Craterloads said:
The point i was making is the "no fly zone" was a lie, and it was. It was just a cover for full military engagement whilst we were told it was just to stop Gaddafi from using aerial attacks.

Hence why when the Tories suggest "changes" to the NHS it’s not so far fetched to believe it’s just a cover for more drastic things to be done.

But we didn't have full military engagement? (Oh hang on, is this some sort of ploy where you lie to, to prove that people lie and shouldn't be trusted?).

If you really want to keep on thinking "All Tory ideas are lies" then feel free, I am unlikely to be able to sway you(nor even care to do so).

joxang · 14 Jun 2012 at 10:40

Milkybk said:
My experiences with the NHS are very poor. While it may be selfish I would much rather have private health care and take the "**** the rest" attitude at this point.

I have lived in the USA and the UK and no which one I prefer.

Good thing you're not running the system then :eek:

.

On a side note.

Did you know that the X-ray linked cancer rate in the USA is 600% that of the UK when population adjusted? Especially true of bowel cancers. Similarly, operations often get recommended and performed even when there is a low possibility of success or a negligible, negative or non-existent impact on patient well-being.

The system in the USA is driven (quite obviously) in a large part by money. A surgeon who tells a patient that he doesn't need an operation will very quickly stop getting patients referred to him. A hospital that doesn't throw the radiology book at any patient coming in will soon go bankrupt.

In the clinical side of the NHS everything - protocols, drug administration, whether or not to do procedures and investigations - is based on the best possible evidence for benefit to the patient. Obviously money is the limiting factor, but it's not the driving force.

Craterloads · 14 Jun 2012 at 10:52

RDM said:
But we didn't have full military engagement? (Oh hang on, is this some sort of ploy where you lie to, to prove that people lie and shouldn't be trusted?).

If you really want to keep on thinking "All Tory ideas are lies" then feel free, I am unlikely to be able to sway you(nor even care to do so).

Wow either your delusional or have a stiffy for the Tories.

Did you not watch what went on in Libya and why now the Russians are now vetoing any "no fly zone" ideas for syria.

Acting as an private airforce for the Libyan rebels was not part of the "no fly zone" deal. If you can not see the "no fly zone" was a cover for regime change then you have issues.

And yes it was as close as full military engagement as one can get, but dont let the facts deter you.

StriderX · 14 Jun 2012 at 10:54

Craterloads said:
Wow either your delusional or have a stiffy for the Tories.

Did you not watch what went on in Libya and why now the Russians are now vetoing any "no fly zone" ideas for syria.

Acting as an private airforce for the Libyan rebels was not part of the "no fly zone" deal. If you can not see the "no fly zone" was a cover for regime change then you have issues.

And yes it was as close as full military engagement as one can get, but dont let the facts deter you.

Oh lol, Russia doesn't want the UN doing anything simply because it has a lot of...property in the nation.

RDM · 14 Jun 2012 at 10:57

Craterloads said:
Wow either your delusional or have a stiffy for the Tories.

Yes of course, because anyone who disagrees with your astute political observations must be either of those. (For the record the social conservative side of the Conservatives puts me right off them as a political party).

Craterloads said:
And yes it was as close as full military engagement as one can get, but dont let the facts deter you.

Well other than actual full military engagement. You know, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Craterloads · 14 Jun 2012 at 11:09

RDM said:
Yes of course, because anyone who disagrees with your astute political observations must be either of those. (For the record the social conservative side of the Conservatives puts me right off them as a political party).

Well other than actual full military engagement. You know, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

There were troops on the ground, planes in the air, battleships and subs at sea. 1000's of bombs dropped but hey thats not full military engagement is it?

RDM · 14 Jun 2012 at 11:11

Craterloads said:
There were troops on the ground, planes in the air, battleships and subs at sea. 1000's of bombs dropped but hey thats not full military engagement is it?

No, I would say full military engagement would be similar to Iraq and Afghanistan. You know, like I said in the post that you have just quoted. Rather than limited military action, like what happened in Libya.

However neither situations have all that much to do with the NHS (other than Iraq and Afghanistan giving our surgeons much more experience with trauma than the previously had).

Craterloads · 14 Jun 2012 at 11:20

RDM said:
No, I would say full military engagement would be similar to Iraq and Afghanistan. You know, like I said in the post that you have just quoted. Rather than limited military action, like what happened in Libya.

However neither situations have all that much to do with the NHS (other than Iraq and Afghanistan giving our surgeons much more experience with trauma than the previously had).

Anyhow you have twisted this, i was just making an analogy. When the Tories say "changes" you never know what they plan. Like when they said "no fly zone" which turned out to be "full military engagement"

RDM · 14 Jun 2012 at 11:22

Craterloads said:
Anyhow you have twisted this, i was just making an analogy.

Maybe you need to think a little more about what analogies you make and then the language you use to back it up?

Craterloads said:
When the Tories say "changes" you never know what they plan. Like when they said "no fly zone" which turned out to be "full military engagement"

See, you are doing it again...

Craterloads · 14 Jun 2012 at 11:23

RDM said:
Maybe you need to think a little more about what analogies you make and then the language you use to back it up?

See, you are doing it again...

Ok let me try again

When the Tories say "changes" you never know what they plan. Like when they said "no fly zone" which turned out to be regime change.

TJM · 14 Jun 2012 at 11:23

Milkybk said:
It's because of the fact that it's money driven that the standard is higher, same as any business that wants to be successful.

The American healthcare system is the most cost ineffective in the developed world and a complete racket; pharmaceutical companies, GPs, hospitals and insurers all have cosy arrangements with each other to milk as much out of every customer as physically possible. However much you pay in tax towards the NHS is a fraction of what American-style healthcare would cost you (and that's assuming you didn't have any serious problems like a prologned bout of cancer; if you did, prepare for bankruptcy).

piggeh · 14 Jun 2012 at 12:01

Milkybk said:
Except that I've never needed the NHS so actually I've being paying them just in case I get ill.

By the time I'm e.g. 60 I will have paid roughly £80,000 just in national insurance tax. That's assuming I don't get serious wage increases etc too. My father and mother are in their mid-50s and only one of them has needed one operation in their entire lifes, they pay considerably more tax than me therefore it's been an EXTREMELY ineffecient method of health care for them. Just an example though.

You've never seen your GP?
You were born at home with no midwifery services?
You've never had a vaccination?

Impressive.

RDM · 14 Jun 2012 at 12:14

Milkybk said:
Except that I've never needed the NHS so actually I've being paying them just in case I get ill.

So, sort of like health insurance then? Like they have in the US system you are advocating? Or would you take the risk and not get health insurance and hope you don't get sick?

RDM · 14 Jun 2012 at 12:24

Milkybk said:
Many large companies in America offer health insurance and dental care to all employees as an incentive to join them anyway.

Unfortunately it also adds to employee inertia in the workforce. Child just got sick? Lets hope you don't want to change jobs as your new employers policies may not cover existing conditions...