Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
NHS Cuts aimed at US in North cenrral London
See this article and the areas being targeted.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/20/leak-shows-devastat...
These areas have some high levels of deprivation and social housing so they ae going to create a downward spiral where the poorest are the elast well cared for.
What a lovely place!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
In Holland - " The standard monthly premium for ( private insurance ) health care paid by individual adults is about €100 per month "
That wouldn't be popular here where we naively imagine that the NHS service is free.
Your Wiki reference isn't clear about what happens when someone is not on a payroll.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
They're a lot healthier than us so that's probably why it works. Why not just pay for it from general taxation? It works amazingly well when it's sensibly funded.
-
-
GPs charge in New Zealand and it's a slippery slope. Better to just tolerate some waste and not get the people on the other side of the "medicard" provision missing out because they'd have to pay.
-
Permalink Reply by maggie on
-
What short memories people have!
In 2010-11 a wide ranging international study of 17 first world health services found that the NHS came top for efficiency and for most other areas studied. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-effi... The US system was among the least efficient and effective of 17 countries studied.
Despite these findings Tory Health Minister ( "There will be no top down reorganisation of the NHS under the Consevatives" !!!) decided to totally reorganise the NHS on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness against all the evidence which demonstrated that it was already among the most effective and efficient and value for money in the world including France, Germany, Holland etc etc etc.
graph from https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/High-Performing-NHS-pro... showing decrease in median waiting times 1997-2010 during Labour governments; we know what has happened to waiting times etc since the Tories took over the running of the NHS.
-
-
Exactly, employers do NOT want a health system where someone doesn't need a job.
-
-
In America your health insurance is provided by your employer. It causes stickiness in employment and employers like that.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
If you look at the per capita spend on health care, it seems that those with the least state intervention are actually more expensive. For instance in 2014 the USA, which relies heavily on private insurance, all spend per capita on health care was $9,000. In the Netherlands it was around $5,000. In Australia, which has high levels of state funding, it was around $4,000 per capita, roughly the same as in the U.K. The conclusion you could draw is that the less state intervention there is in health care, the more health providers whack up their prices.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_e...
-
-
You could draw that conclusion but using the US to support your position is mistaken:
Obamacare was designed to ensure that the prices of private insurance went so high that the insurers would either leave the industry (and thus give that state's residents no options--you can search on companies who simply dropped out, it's state by state) and/or make people clamour back to the government that created the problem in the first place to fix the problem = single payer. THIS single payer (the state) was the real objective of Obamacare but, like most liberal measures, they had to cover up that fact to get the public to buy in (I can show you the proof of this if you don't believe me).
The main reason the prices went so high in the USA is because pre-existing conditions had to be given insurance by law under Obamacare. This is basically akin to someone being able to buy fire insurance after their house burns down. This cost had to be spread out.
Moreover (again by design to get to single payer) the fine for not buying insurance was cheaper than buying insurance and most healthy people opted for the fine to the IRS.
The conclusion one should draw is that whenever the state intervenes in commerce, the public is worse off. Especially so when a socialist government (Obama) is in power. How's Venezuela these days?
-
-
Obama as president of the United States of America compared to whoever is running poor old Venezuela! Ha ha ha!!!!!
I think our references for Socialist Utopias are a little closer to home and we refer to them as Scandinavia. Cheers all the same.
-
-
Huh?
-
-
Since when is a person's health a 'commercial' activity?
People don't decide to get cancer or have a serious accident, etc!
Whatever the system is it should be mutualised so that the rosk are equally shared and being born with a particular genes and predispositions or where you are born and live don't dictate how much you pay and what level of health care you receive.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
