Visiting the UK. Health Coverage ?

[Castiel]

Hmm, nice strawman there. I didn't say that at all care to show where I did.

You are getting so desperate now that you cannot even remember what you have said and resort to the age old obfuscation of accusing those you ask you to support your argument of strawmen instead:

Strange how you think it's all ok and yet the RCN don't, the GMC don't, the NHS trusts don't, the general population don't, infant mortality rates don't, oncology survival rates don't, need I go on?!?

The latest figures simply do not support the claim that the general population think the NHS is shocking...64% in fact don't agree with you.

Again I never said you didn't know anything about anything. What I said was that you lacked the knowledge or skills to recognise good care and would therefore judge the experience not the actual quality. Nice strawman again ...

Oh and those two links there. One was old data ... again ... and the second measured a scant few trusts and found glaring weaknesses even when just assessing on these:

mortality
patient experience
safety
workforce
clinical and operational effectiveness
leadership and governance

Oh, look we have missed off the actual outcomes again ... strange how no-one is really that willing in the NHS presented links you keep providing to actually talk about outcomes. I wonder why that is.

Again, you claim a strawman instead of actually answering the questions asked of you...and both links are from September 2013 and July 2013 respectively.

Again you try to ignore the point being made about the overall comparative nature of the NHS and create your own little argument based on negative opinion with nothing to support how the NHS compares to other health systems overall, you are simply saying that this is bad or that needs improvement...well no one said it didn't..but that doesnt address the claim that he NHS is shocking at all, so the strawman is yours quite frankly.

Again, I will say it...I cannot find one reputable source that agrees with your claim that the NHS is shocking, plenty that point out various areas that need attention and where they are doing well, but none that shows that compared to other Health systems the NHS is shocking that appears to be your own personal opinion and therefore is no more objective than my own. But then again, I'm too stupid and lack the basic skills to recognise good and bad care when I see it.

 

[Rich_L]

I was just trying to point out that it is fairly meaningless to compare gross mortality or life expectancies because their are so many confounding factors.

I don't think the NHS is shocking, I do strongly believe the quality is a long way behind what the average American with health insurance receives. I do find that some people are too poor to have health insurance and have no state provided substitution to be shocking.

Plus there's the non-medical side of things such as the financial impact - it's pretty damning that something like 50% of US bankruptcies are attributed to medical bills, the majority of which are middle-class home-owners with health insurance who had the misfortune to fall victim to that delightful combination of medical bills which tend to increase directly in proportion to the the person's declining ability to work and earn money.

I think it's nice with the NHS that if you do fall ill, at least you only have to worry about coming up with money for your single mortgage rather than the second mortgage that was required to pay the hospital bill

 

[Xordium]

You are getting so desperate now that you cannot even remember what you have said and resort to the age old obfuscation of accusing those you ask you to support your argument of strawmen instead:

Post the exact place I said:

"is that the figures quoted are wrong and that the general population all agree with you that the NHS is the now worst health system out of those quoted, falling from 2nd overall to worst in just 3 years!"

Or shut up tbh.

 

[randomshenans]

My wife is coming to the UK to give birth in July. PROPER IMMIGRANTS ROBBIN THE STATE!

It's not quite that straight forward as she has complications which stem from a tumour she had and then removed, so she's being treated by the same doctors who did that, in the same hospital (which she used to work in).

Swiss care is very good and hi-tech etc. We pay ~700EUR a month though for over the border insurance. But we didn't have over the border cover >12 months prior to being pregnant so it's not covered. If we were to pay for this in Switzerland, with all her complications it would cost upwards of 50,000CHF and trying to get them to sync up with the UK with the case notes was impossible.
Naturally, we never considered France.

 

[ntg]

My wife is coming to the UK to give birth in July. PROPER IMMIGRANTS ROBBIN THE STATE!

It's not quite that straight forward as she has complications which stem from a tumour she had and then removed, so she's being treated by the same doctors who did that, in the same hospital (which she used to work in).

Swiss care is very good and hi-tech etc. We pay ~700EUR a month though for over the border insurance. But we didn't have over the border cover >12 months prior to being pregnant so it's not covered. If we were to pay for this in Switzerland, with all her complications it would cost upwards of 50,000CHF and trying to get them to sync up with the UK with the case notes was impossible.
Naturally, we never considered France.

With 700euro/month she could have been seen & give birth in private hospital, not NHS!

Also, isn't there free healthcare in Switzerland with regard to giving birth? because if there is I can't fathom why you'd want to do it in England.

 

[randomshenans]

No, there isn't. And we live in France, so not residents of CH.

 

[Castiel]

Post the exact place I said:

"is that the figures quoted are wrong and that the general population all agree with you that the NHS is the now worst health system out of those quoted, falling from 2nd overall to worst in just 3 years!"

Or shut up tbh.

I quoted the part that was relevant. You have stated quite often that the figures are irrelevant, out of date or you dismiss them out of hand, and you have said that the NHS is shocking...now your argument is revolving around asking me to quote an exact passage that I in fact wrote rather than you just illustrates that you are increasingly desperate. Are you now saying that you didn't say the NHS was shocking, that you didn't say that the general populace agree with this, that the figures quoted are indeed now relevant?

Why don't you actually support your position or shut up.

 

[Xordium]

I quoted the part that was relevant.

So you couldn't back it up when asked. Nice strawman like I said.

 

[Castiel]

So you couldn't back it up when asked. Nice strawman like I said.

Err..it was backed up in the first instance, the strawman is asking someone to quote from themselves????. Obfuscation and accusation is all your argument is now resigned to quite obviously.

Is there any 2013 or more recent equivalent to the Commonwealth Fund report 2010 that shows the comparisons to other National Health Systems? that is all you need to supply and if it shows the NHS in last place overall then I will concede...I have looked for verification of what you have said and simply cannot find any reputable, objective source that states such and you have not supplied one.

 

[Xordium]

Post exactly where I said the following in the context you stated and to the extreme you stated please before I bother replying.

Xordium, basically what you are saying is that the figures quoted are wrong and that the general population all agree with you that the NHS is the now worst health system out of those quoted,

If you can't do that then you are arguing against something I've never said.

Just do that or I'll consider this thread redundant and I'll move on to something where people are willing to talk about what I've said rather than what they want to go on about.

 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

Check your insurance to see if it covers you in the EU

 

[Castiel]

Post exactly where I said the following in the context you stated and to the extreme you stated please before I bother replying.



If you can't do that then you are arguing against something I've never said.

Just do that or I'll consider this thread redundant and I'll move on to something where people are willing to talk about what I've said rather than what they want to go on about.

the general population don't.

As in they do not agree with me that the NHS is not as shocking as you say it is...yet 2013 figures suggest that is not the case.

1) A poorly performing NHS - statistics back this assertion up the NHS has drifted down quality wise since the recession.

Well then you are the lucky one but that is of course a subjective opinion in stark contrast to my impressions and it appears of many in this thread. If we were to move onto objective facts then the NHS does not perform well at this time....

That is not to knock the NHS or the staff it would be like hitting a child and showing them no love or attention and then damning them for poor results at school.

these are just two examples of the distain with which you hold the NHS and have yet actually given those statistics that compare the relevant systems (particularly the NHS v US) overall..the only statistics thus far are those I have given, which contradict the assertion that the NHS is overall poor in this regard.

Hmm, not so sure you'd be saying that if you had to go through the system the way it is now. You are basing your judgement on something historical and at that time there was a few creaks but there was also quality. I am not so sure there is that quality any more and there is certainly more than a few creaks.

This is the quote that directly related to the use of the term "Shocking" it is in reply to my disagreement that the NHS is shocking, it has its issues and areas that need addressing but it isnt shocking...you clearly think otherwise, but have yet to actually demonstrate that in comparison to overall performance with other National Health systems, instead you are simply saying that Europe (and I assume the US, as that is the relevant one to the thread) are better, significantly so going by the context of your posts.

Now to go back to the original question asked of you in response to this claim...

1) A poorly performing NHS

Compared to who and by what definition?

You have yet to answer this, all you have done is dismiss, obfuscate and try a little baiting...which as we are friends is all ok...but you have not actually given me the most recent version the 2010 comparison with which to actually assess this for myself...and nowhere I have looked can I find an objective and reliable source that says that the NHS, in comparison to other Nations Health Systems is shocking...as I said, plenty of issues, improvements, recommendations and the NHS is poor is some areas, but that doesn't address the overall performance compared to other comparable systems...all we have so far is the 2010 comparison and several other recent studies and polls that suggest that the NHS is performing ok overall.

 

[Xordium]

So you couldn't demonstrate that I said:

The figures were wrong
The NHS was the worst

Like I said strawman.

 

[Castiel]

So you couldn't demonstrate that I said:

The figures were wrong
The NHS was the worst

Like I said strawman.

Good god....are you a wind-up merchant or what.

You clearly said the figures were irrelevant, therefore wrong when comparing more recent performance, you consistently refer to being the worst in Europe for individual criteria you choose to highlight, but I can find no actual proof of that, with some cancers the performance is poor, others it is average and in some it is better than average, similarly with Infant Mortality, worse than some, better than others, in fact according to some when you compare similar countries as regards to smoking, dietary and lifestyle habits, the UK performs pretty well, suggesting that the issue isn't care related but rather sociodemographic....but you still do not give a clear indication about the overall relative performance, which was the entire point...do you really want me to quote the whole thread to you, with a contextual breakdown of the assumptions and implications drawn from what you are posting just so you can still avoid the very simple question asked of you more than once, I even asked it again above...really????

You accuse me of a strawman...you have built an entire god-damned army of them and they are running rampage through this thread...

As I said, show me the money and I will concede..but wait..don't tell me....this is a strawman as well...well put in the line and it can march to your marching beat.

 

[Xordium]

you consistently refer to being the worst in Europe for individual criteria you choose to highlight

Okay please quote where I said that.

When you stop exaggerating and blowing everything out of proportion and context then maybe we can progress. I want you to to show me where I have said these things you claim I have. Why should I bother finding something to substantiate an opinion I expressed to someone else when you insist on making stuff up.

I don't want you to quote the whole thread - just 3 bits not a lot to ask I mean you normally have no problems googling stuff or quoting people.

 

[Castiel]

Okay please quote where I said that.

I don't need to offer any proof anybody can look up the infant mortality rate in this country compared to the rest of Europe. Anyone can look up the cancer survival rates. Anyone can look up the problems of obesity and heart disease. Type 2 diabetes.

Look clearly you cant or won't answer the question, this is why you are constantly trying to avoid it thorough all this pointless prevarication, you stated early in the context of my saying the NHS is not shocking (which is to my mind an exaggeration in itself) and while it needs improvement, it still performs well, that things like infant mortality, cancer survival and cardiovascular would show otherwise, implying that the NHS is indeed shocking and far below the rest of Europe...if not the worst...while this doesn't actually address the question asked of you initially, it also seems that the NHS performs about average in these areas overall, with some cancers for example being better and others worse, again this isn't necessarily indicative of overall care or of the levels of care at all...they are arguably dependent on the socio-demographic criteria they are assessed under.

It was a simple question, you said the NHS performs poorly (earlier supporting that view that it was shocking) and I asked you by what comparison and definition...instead you would rather construct a semantic argument about whether people are exaggerating or using the emphasis wrongly or some-such other device you can use to avoid the question. Considering the question was asked quite concisely and without anything other than data to support the question, you have not offered one bit of evidence to the contrary or been able to offer the updated (if there are any) datasets comparable to those given..instead we have this degenerative nonsense.

And while its not quoting the entire thread, it does mean reading it all every time..when all you ahve to do is actually answer the simple question, that is all..no arguing about semantics or whether you meant this or that, or whether that word was taken out of context...just answer the question by supplying the current data comparative to that given in 2010 that compares overall the performance of the national health service of different comparable countries...that is all you need to do.

So you can either answer it or not...instead if you choose to just be a bit of an arse. well carry on, I thought more highly of you...basically answer it or don't, frankly I don't care any more and I going to bed.

 

[Xordium]

So I did not use the word worst.

When does compare = worst ...

Stop being dishonest and maybe we can discuss things properly.

 

[randomshenans]

I think we should settle it with a bout of blind naked penis jousting. Most injured has to go and be treated in the /worst/ healthcare system available?

 

[Castiel]

So I did not use the word worst.

When does compare = worst ...

Stop being dishonest and maybe we can discuss things properly.

The irony. I don't particularly want to discuss anything with you quite frankly. You can answer a single question and would rather ad hominem your way through. No thanks.

 

[Xordium]

I don't particularly want to discuss anything with you quite frankly.

That much is quite clear because you haven't been discussing anything with me all along and have been ranting and challenging something I or no-one else in this thread have said. When asked to demonstrate where I stated these things that you claim I have you have failed every single time.