Quite a weekend

[Russian Mafia]

On Saturday, my dad wanted to take a drive with me and shoot some video (he makes home movie clips for a hobbie). We got onto a not-so-much-used-road and he said he wanted to stand on the running board and hold on to the roof rack and tape from the outside. I was going about 15 mph and I look to see that he wasn't there. I look into my rear-view mirror and see him laying on the road. I put on my hazard lights and ran to him. His eyes were rolled up and he was breathing through his mouth. I desperately tried to wake him up and finally did after about a minute. Someone saw us and called 911. I talked to my dad and he didn't remember anything. I then noticed that he was bleeding from the back of his head. I told him that he fell and that he was bleeding, two minutes later he asked again, and then another two minutes later he asked again what happed and asked if he was bleeding. I had paper towels and held them on the wound. The ambulance came and then took him away.

At the hospital they said they stitched it up and then I got to see him, and he started remembering the day. He didn't hurt anything else, except he has a few small scratches on his back. We (my dad and I) decided to take him home for the night so the bill wouldn't be as high. He is fine now, I just have to keep my eye on him. Oh, and when he fell the camera was still rolling, and he said he will put it up on his youtube page later. I hope that the insurance coves some of the bill. :/

 

[Dan]

We (my dad and I) decided to take him home for the night so the bill wouldn't be as high.

This is why private health care sucks.

 

[Saturos]

This is why private health care sucks.

Yes, but like anything private vs. public, you get what you pay for. (or don't pay for)
i.e. private school vs. public school, private medicine vs. socialist medicine etc.

Quality is what you should get from a private investment anyways. Though that's not always the case. That's why we have lawyers though.


@ OP: Glad to hear you pa's ok. It's scary to come so close to losing a loved one fs.

 

[The Monkey]

This is why private health care sucks.

Yes.

Reading shit like that makes me sick.

 

[Saturos]

Yes.

Reading shit like that makes me sick.

It wouldn't be so bad if the middle class here in the US wasn't getting strained to the breaking point. Economically speaking.

US medicine:
The rich- Speaks for itself tbh.

The poor- Government aid. (a.k.a The money from the over-taxed middle class) Especially if your a minority. Assholes, get an education and a job.

The middle- Good luck. Might as well file bankruptcy in hopes you can get aid like the poor. Even then, if your not a minority, your screwed.

 

[Iron Kat]

I suppose that is when having NHS would be handy, despite the fact it sucks pretty much 90% of the time.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

Good thing he's ok.

 

[highlander]

godamn, that's lucky he's okay dude. health care FTL

 

[Ravioli]

thats crazy, but what happened? I dont really understand from what you wrote, did you hit him with the car? or did he have some sort of seizure?

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

Sounds like he fell off the back and took a nice blow to the back of the head.

 

[Russian Mafia]

thats crazy, but what happened? I dont really understand from what you wrote, did you hit him with the car? or did he have some sort of seizure?

Fell off from the side of the car and hit his head.

 

[Saturos]

thats crazy, but what happened? I dont really understand from what you wrote, did you hit him with the car? or did he have some sort of seizure?

Ravioli, your so silly. Did Chef Boyardee give you meat for brains? He said...

We got onto a not-so-much-used-road and he said he wanted to stand on the running board and hold on to the roof rack and tape from the outside.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist. No hard feelings K?

 

[Ravioli]

Ah ok. Sorry Saturos but my english is still not the best Words not included in my english vocabulary:
Running Board (a board you run on? )
Roof Rack (a rack on the roof?)

 

[Saturos]

Ah ok. Sorry Saturos but my english is still not the best Words not included in my english vocabulary:
Running Board (a board you run on? )
Roof Rack (a rack on the roof?)

I know your a Swed living in Italy and all and your probably having a rough time with translations on an English speaking forum, but it's just that your screename is so, so....irresistably delicious. :|

I love raviolis.

Oh yeah,

Running board= Strip of fiberglass/metal running alongside the vehicle that people stand on or use to climb into said vehicle.

Roof Rack= Two pieces of metal (usually) on top of an all-terrain vehicle (usually), that people use to tie stuff down on the roof of said vehicle.

I don't know the Italian/Swedish translation of these things though, but I described them the best I could.

 

[VirusType2]

Crazy idea. Next time maybe attach the camera to the roof rack?

anyway, I'm glad he is OK. Should have been wearing a life-preserver jacket.

 

[[Matt]]

I suppose that is when having NHS would be handy, despite the fact it sucks pretty much 90% of the time.

You read the tabloids too much. The NHS does a superb job despite the fact that its drastically underfunded by the government.

 

[Sulkdodds]

If the NHS sucked 90% of the time, 90% of patients would be dying.
Plus, many trusts are in real financial troubles. Maybe this is why?
(of course, there are other reasons, but this one is significant)

Yes, but like anything private vs. public, you get what you pay for. (or don't pay for)
i.e. private school vs. public school, private medicine vs. socialist medicine etc.

Quality is what you should get from a private investment anyways.

I don't think you understand the problem. To put it very simplistically, if health insurance is optional, then a lot of people will feel that they can miss out on it because they have more important financial things to worry about - they're not going to get sick! Stupid people get injured; they'll be fine, and meanwhile they can use the money to get by in other ways. Only the more people do this, the less money there is going into the health insurance scheme. And the less money there is the lower the quality is. And the lower the quality is the less people are going to pay for it. And so on.

It is arguable that the very existence of private healthcare harms everybody. If it were not problematic enough to run a life-saving service motivated by profit - yes, it's in the company's interest to keep their customers healthy, but if then why isn't their primary interest the lives and not the money? - private healthcare also drags competent medical professionals, and plenty of money, away from the Service. Of course, those who use private services are still actually paying their taxes, which still go towards the NHS, and certainly if I were a politician I would not try to outlaw private health without decent evidence that it would actually be to the net benefit of the country to do so (and even then it probably wouldn't work, due to international/corporate concerns).

 

[theotherguy]

I'm sorry to hear that, but what he did was seriously stupid. You should have just attached the camera to the roof rack.

 

[theotherguy]

Yes, but like anything private vs. public, you get what you pay for. (or don't pay for)
i.e. private school vs. public school, private medicine vs. socialist medicine etc.

Quality is what you should get from a private investment anyways. Though that's not always the case. That's why we have lawyers though.


@ OP: Glad to hear you pa's ok. It's scary to come so close to losing a loved one fs.

With private industry, it isn't about quality, its about supply and demand. It just so happens that in the market, competition drives quality upward. The health care market is running perfectly as a market should. It just so happens that the market for health care results in many users opting out, and not "buying" the product, their health, which should be expected in any market. Meanwhile, prices are being driven up by the short supply of doctors and healthcare facilities, and the immense upfront cost of such facilities.

I believe that the health market is not something which should be left in the unguided invisible hand of the market, but is really a public good which the government should ideally provide. There are too many positive and negative externalities involved in health. Healthy workers improve the economy, without passing on the benifits to health insurers, while people getting sub-par healthcare or no healthcare at all creates immense costs on society which are not paid by health insurers. Where you have externalities, you must have either two things happen: the government must step in and pay the external costs and provide tax breaks for the best insurers who have the healthiest patients, or the government must totally take over the industry.

 

[Raziaar]

Well it's good that he's okay now.

But yeah, that stuff about the bill being too high keeping him there, that stuff pisses me off.

I'm always suspicious of doctors, when they say stuff like, "We'd like to keep them overnight for observation" especially when it's nothing serious... I mean if they only need to keep them overnight one day, how ****ing bad can it be. I want to say to them, "You mean you want to keep them overnight so you can pad our bill."

Because it's true. Doctors are scum.

I would much rather have a national healthcare system. Because even minor visits can have such a huge impact on my wallet, and more serious ones... well, let's just say, "hello debt!"

 

[repiV]

In many ways, the NHS does suck. I'm almost certain I have more firsthand experience of the NHS than anyone else here, so I feel qualified to make that judgement.

Currently it's suffering under the deluge of chronic mismanagement by Labour, and their stupid targets - to the extent that casualty patients will be wheeled out on a trolley and left in the hallway so that the staff can check the box saying they've been dealt with and admitted to a ward.
Once they gave my mums bed in A+E to another patient when she went off to give a urine sample and then when she came back, told her she had to go sit in a chair in the waiting area instead. WTF is that?

From my experience, the treatment (as in, that which is provided by doctors/surgeons rather than nurses) is excellent, but the logistics surrounding the delivery of that treatment, and the nursing care, leaves a lot to be desired.
When I had my accident, the paramedics were brilliant, the field doctor saved my foot, and the treatment in A+E was first rate. The surgery was also fine, although they took three days to decide what they wanted to do, and they ended up doing something completely different from what they told me they were going to do. All fine.
However, after suffering apparently the worst fracture my consultant has ever seen in his life, and being totally incapacitated by it, how much help did I get to live with that injury? **** all. I got three 15 minute physiotherapy sessions while I was in hospital, after which I could just about hop across the room on crutches without falling over (which made me want to puke). No advice on how to have a shower, look after myself or do anything - and then I was discharged far too early back to a family full of disability and terminal illness who couldn't do shit for me. And I couldn't get myself readmitted, even though I really needed to be in hospital. Once you're out, you're out.
In the seven months since, I've had absolutely no help besides the appointments with my consultant to see how well it's healing and my recent surgery. No physio, no help with making a living, nada.

The treatment offered for specialist conditions is also pretty crap. There are only 300 neurologists in the entire country, and I'm very lucky to be able to see one of them regarding my epilepsy. Most people with my condition have to have theirs managed by their GP. In any case, I have to wait a year at a time for a 15 minute appointment.

Not to mention the gross misallocation of resources, the way numerous life-saving/life-extending drugs are withheld on the basis of cost saving - yet the NHS can afford to give people ****ing cosmetic surgery. I worked in correspondence in the Department of Health for a while, and the number of letters we would receive about dying relative with cancer/going blind due to macular degeneration/needs drugs for Alzheimers etc not allowed access to the drugs they require, and the bullshit standardised hand-washing replies we had to send back to be signed by the hundred by the health minister, made my blood boil. And in Scotland, they get a load of things that we in England do not have access to. Very fair and equitable.

Oh, and then there's how more people die from infections picked up whilst in hospital than die on our roads every year. And a large minority of nurses barely speak English or have any kind of people skills.


Also, I'm really not sure what kind of moral problem privatised healthcare presents on the basis that people will choose to overlook health insurance when it's optional. It's not my responsibility to pick up the bill for other people's stupidity or inability to manage their own life. As we are in fact seeing today, if you make the world idiot-proof, you create a world full of idiots.
That being said, I think that healthcare should be funded by the state. Unfortunately that usually means that the clueless wankstains we call politicians get the opportunity to **** it all up in the process. A system like France has would be ideal, where government pays but the service is provided by the private sector which the benefits of competency and patient choice that allows.

 

[Russian Mafia]

I'm sorry to hear that, but what he did was seriously stupid. You should have just attached the camera to the roof rack.

We were only going to go 500 feet, so it felt unnecessary.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Also, I'm really not sure what kind of moral problem privatised healthcare presents on the basis that people will choose to overlook health insurance when it's optional. It's not my responsibility to pick up the bill for other people's stupidity or inability to manage their own life. As we are in fact seeing today, if you make the world idiot-proof, you create a world full of idiots.
That being said, I think that healthcare should be funded by the state. Unfortunately that usually means that the clueless wankstains we call politicians get the opportunity to **** it all up in the process. A system like France has would be ideal, where government pays but the service is provided by the private sector which the benefits of competency and patient choice that allows.

It simply seems to me that if the existence of private healthcare - which not everyone can access - substantially reduces the quality of public healthcare - which everyone can access - then it is bringing down the net liberty available in the country and thus abhorrent. Logically, I feel it is likely that such a net reduction does happen. But as I already said, I do not have enough evidence of it to be entirely sure. I guess I'm being premature.

The problem is we already do have a system in place quite similar to France - the Private Finance Initiative, which, counterintuitively, is actually more expensive than simple state funding and has resulted in a string of problems (see the wikipedia article I linked) including, presumably, many of those big IT failures that have been exposed so well in the media - since the NHS IT solutions are privatised. However good the theory or intentions were for PFI, the results have been shit. I regard with some suspicion Blair's old commitment to providing "choice" in the public services - it seems that most people would rather have competence and efficiency. Another problem is New Labour's completely incompetent restructuring of the medical training system which has left the service drastically understaffed.

Indeed, the PFI has been partly responsible for many of the problems you mention (I have no doubt your description of what it's like in the innards is accurate). For example, the first PFI hospitals contain approx 28 per cent fewer beds than the ones they replaced. That article is quite a good exposure of a very big problem. Perhaps the biggest problem.

There is also, finally, a difficulty whereby the NHS is systematically politicised, firstly because it is very tempting for governments - particularly the modern, media-centred New Labour, but certainly the Conservatives as well if they were in government. But secondly, by reporting on "superbugs" and suchlike, the media (justifiably?) turn health concerns into political ones, which means the responses are also moulded by political - and not necessarily scientific - motives.

- although it should be noted at this point that 'superbugs' are not isolated in the UK, existing and rising, across the western world. In fact, apparently there are twice as many deaths from them in the USA as there are here. Oh yeah - according to the Telegraph, PFI shares blame for those as well.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Also yeah, sorry about your dad OP. D:

[/scumbag politician]

EDIT: Not wanting to triple post, we cannot be entirely party-political about the failings of the NHS.
We have an ageing and a growing population. There are problems beyond the last ten years.

 

[repiV]

It simply seems to me that if the existence of private healthcare - which not everyone can access - substantially reduces the quality of public healthcare - which everyone can access - then it is bringing down the net liberty available in the country and thus abhorrent. Logically, I feel it is likely that such a net reduction does happen. But as I already said, I do not have enough evidence of it to be entirely sure. I guess I'm being premature.

I can't really see how that would happen tbh. I would also argue that private healthcare is available to a much greater percentage of the population than you would think, it's not particularly expensive. I had BUPA cover with my old job, company healthcare schemes are very common in the corporate world certainly. And it's a lot cheaper than car insurance if you're going to take it up privately.
Of course, it's a little different than in, say, the USA, because all the major treatment is still performed by the NHS. Private hospitals simply don't have the resources to deal with things like that. But I'm perfectly happy with the quality of that major treatment, it's the other aspects that are suffering.
The other thing is that the NHS isn't exactly the safety net you might think. Surely decent health insurance would cover lost wages and suchlike as well as the actual treatment. The worst aspect of this whole debacle for me has been the dire financial situation it's left me in. To add insult to injury, I can't get any help under the government's Access to Work scheme because I only have a temporary disability. All I asked for was a cab ride to work and back. Seemingly, they would prefer I claim benefits.
Of course, if I was riding the public sector gravy train, I would have been entitled to six months full sick pay. As opposed to the five days that's standard in most companies I've worked for...
They patch up your injuries, but after that, you're very much on your own. Government support only seems to be available to permanent drains on the economy, people who actually want to work and want a little temporary assistance to do so get told to **** off. The very same people who foot the majority of the tax bill.

All things considered, the pertinent question to my mind is why the hell should we trust the government with providing healthcare for all when they are clearly incapable of doing so?
That's the problem with socialised anything. It puts you in a position of dependence, and when they fail to live up to their end of the bargain, there's very little you can do about it.

The problem is we already do have a system in place quite similar to France - the Private Finance Initiative, which, counterintuitively, is actually more expensive than simple state funding and has resulted in a string of problems (see the wikipedia article I linked) including, presumably, many of those big IT failures that have been exposed so well in the media - since the NHS IT solutions are privatised. However good the theory or intentions were for PFI, the results have been shit. I regard with some suspicion Blair's old commitment to providing "choice" in the public services - it seems that most people would rather have competence and efficiency. Another problem is New Labour's completely incompetent restructuring of the medical training system which has left the service drastically understaffed.

Indeed, the PFI has been partly responsible for many of the problems you mention (I have no doubt your description of what it's like in the innards is accurate). For example, the first PFI hospitals contain approx 28 per cent fewer beds than the ones they replaced. That article is quite a good exposure of a very big problem. Perhaps the biggest problem.

I'm confused. Is it not so that in France, the treatment is delivered in a similar style to that which you would find in the USA, but the bill is paid for by the government?
i.e. you go to a private doctor and the doctor charges the state.

There is also, finally, a difficulty whereby the NHS is systematically politicised, firstly because it is very tempting for governments - particularly the modern, media-centred New Labour, but certainly the Conservatives as well if they were in government. But secondly, by reporting on "superbugs" and suchlike, the media (justifiably?) turn health concerns into political ones, which means the responses are also moulded by political - and not necessarily scientific - motives.

One of the reasons the government should not be entrusted with management responsibilities.
I swear, the 100k a year department heads in the DoH wouldn't even hold down a 20k job in the private sector. The civil service is full of lazy, incompetent twats with an arrogant contempt for the public they're supposed to serve.

- although it should be noted at this point that 'superbugs' are not isolated in the UK, existing and rising, across the western world. In fact, apparently there are twice as many deaths from them in the USA as there are here. Oh yeah - according to the Telegraph, PFI shares blame for those as well.

Hmm.

 

[Saturos]

I don't think you understand the problem. To put it very simplistically, if health insurance is optional, then a lot of people will feel that they can miss out on it because they have more important financial things to worry about - they're not going to get sick! Stupid people get injured; they'll be fine, and meanwhile they can use the money to get by in other ways. Only the mor... *SNIP*

With private industry, it isn't about quality, its about supply and demand. It just so happens that in the market, competition drives quality upward. The health care market is running perfectly as a market should. It just so happens that the market... *SNIP*

You both have raised some very good points on the weaknesses of the private healthcare industry, but I need to ask, how can doctors become motivated to be the very best if they do not see the fruits of their hard labor? Meaning, how do the best doctors in places where there's socialized medicine get their satisfaction if not through money? Surely they demand some sort of privileged lifestyle if they strive to be the best in their field? ammirite? Doesn't the greedy human nature in us all that drives humans to "want" eventually get the best of us in our quest to become the ideal selfless, person of greatness striving for the advancement of mankind? (I'm talking about the weakness of socialized medicine)

Also true that health insurance companies are a bunch of thieving, greedy bastards. I do acknowledge this as a weakness to private medicine.

A scenario of the widely-known private health insurance scam:

Doctor: This patient is scheduled for an emergency heart transplant. Get prepped immedia.....wait a minute,
Nurse: What's the matter sir?

Doctor: This patient does not have any insurance.
Nurse: What should we do?

Doctor: Get this freeloader outta here now! We've got patients with insurance waiting to be treated!
Nurse: Yes sir.

/The nurse wheels the un-insured patient's bed along with the patient into the hallway.

*2 hours pass. The patient is unconscious and life-signs are dropping*

Nurse: Hey! This freeloader from earlier is blocking the vending machine!
/The nurse wheels the half-dead patient out the back door and outside into the alley.

*15 minutes later, a doctor arriving for his shift notices the patient out in the alley in the hospital bed*

Doctor: Hey! This bum stole one of our beds! and one of our patient's gowns too!
/The doctor tips the unconscious, un-insured patient out of the bed and removes his gown.

Doctor: Bum! Go beg for liquor money somewhere else!

 

[Dan]

Haha, I'm sorry for derailing this thread from the very beginning.

 

[Iron Kat]

You read the tabloids too much. The NHS does a superb job despite the fact that its drastically underfunded by the government.

Actually I don't read the tabloids. It's personal experiance that I'm speaking about.

 

[Kula Meenur]

Good thing he's ok.

I think thats the first sensible thing i've heard out of you willeh...wow man i'm stunned!





Concur with willeh, bit of a bugga, but must have been a helluva kick for him at the time

 

[Iron Kat]

If the NHS sucked 90% of the time, 90% of patients would be dying.

... :| Hm. Can't actually come up with an adequate response to that except: touche.

 

[CptStern]

I hear hollywood cameramen die like this all the time ..in fact it's a well lknown industry hazard

:dozey:




perhaps next time he should tie himself to the back of the car ..the longer the rope the better




hope your dad is ok/learned his lesson

 

[Solaris]

It wouldn't be so bad if the middle class here in the US wasn't getting strained to the breaking point. Economically speaking.

US medicine:
The rich- Speaks for itself tbh.

The poor- Government aid. (a.k.a The money from the over-taxed middle class) Especially if your a minority. Assholes, get an education and a job.

The middle- Good luck. Might as well file bankruptcy in hopes you can get aid like the poor. Even then, if your not a minority, your screwed.

You really are a biggoted, igorant asshole.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The complaints about the pheripheral aspects of the NHS all seem completely valid, but might also be said to stem from the general financial troubles the service is experiencing.

All things considered, the pertinent question to my mind is why the hell should we trust the government with providing healthcare for all when they are clearly incapable of doing so?
That's the problem with socialised anything. It puts you in a position of dependence, and when they fail to live up to their end of the bargain, there's very little you can do about it.

But this is unfair. Firstly, 'the government' has been running the NHS since its inception, and complaints have not been so drastically; secondly, the government does not run the NHS. The NHS runs the NHS, and it is a civil service, which, in theory, is not party-political, and which certainly does not change as often as governments are wont to do. Perhaps we should trust the NHS to do the jobs that they are trained, paid, demanded and have the experience to do. In theory, the government is held ultimately responsible, because the money is routing through them. They are supposedly democratically accountable, and certainly they are subject at a moment's notice to media witch-hunts.

The problem is that what is happening now is a party-political reform programme that combines all the worst aspects of private and public services. The corner-cutting, cost-inflating, money-grabbing ways that socialists might reasonably associate with organisations whose sole stated legal purpose is to make profit are facilitated by government management which is idiotic, uninformed, and corrupt, weighted entirely towards appeasements of those aforementioned private interests at the expense of the public good.

THE FLEECING OF HAM - A PLAY IN TWO ACTS

Ham-On-Shrewsbrough NHS Trust: La, la, la. Perhaps it is time to renovate our hospital! This'll cost 30 million, an acceptable solution.
Labour Government: Non. We must make the services more efficient, and cut public spending. To do this we must privilege those trusts willing to buy into the PFI scheme, and, therefore, no substantial funding will be made available to you.
NHS Trust: What if we were to submit a plan that took advantage of this new PFI thing?
Labour Government: Now you're talking!
Associated Consortium: The demolition of the old hospital and the construction of the new one will reduce bed capacity by 25 percent, staff by 20 percent, and will cost ?174 pounds sterling. Also, we get the land on which the hospital will stand/
NHS Trust: D:
Labour Government: Damn straight!

ACT TWO

Two years later...
NHS Trust: How's that building going?
Associated Consortium: Oh, yeah, well, you kinda have to pay us an extra ?150 million, approx. Costs rising, you know how it is.
NHS Trust: D:
Labour Government: ...and we promise that we will continue to improve and reform the NHS to meet the standards of a changing world, and that mobility and adaptibility will be our watchwords...
All freeze.

THE END

Bravo!
This unholy alliance between a government that does not understand business and business that does not need to be ethical actually ends up meaning there is only one way to meet the outrageous costs of PFI: decreasing public services spending. Hello, vicious cycle! Not to mention that the details of these spiralling-cost contracts, despite the fact that they use our tax money, are confidential for reasons of 'commercial confidentiality' under the misnamed Freedom of Information Act. Goodbye, public accountability!

Like Monbiot at the end of that article I linked earlier, I am against the privatisation of most public services by default, on principle, unless I can be convinced otherwise. And yet it seems obvious to anyone from neo-liberals to outright socialists that something has gone drastically wrong here. I'd say you're on the money about the drawbacks of a political education:

The government is in the most dangerous of all positions: its fawning willingness to prove that it is now the party of big business is matched only by a total failure to understand how business works. Without commercial experience, Blair and his ministers regard the companies they court with a kind of superstitious awe: ?partnership?, irrespective of terms, will summon up some economic magic which turns base motives into gold. And these are the people who now call themselves the party of economic competence...
...I must reluctantly conclude that even the outright sale of the service ? with its liabilities as well as its assets ? would provide a better deal for both patients and taxpayers than Blair?s great giveaway.

With this in mind, I despair when I find that a google search for 'stop PFI' or 'end PFI' turns up only socialist party results. Multipartisan pressure group, plz.

I'm confused. Is it not so that in France, the treatment is delivered in a similar style to that which you would find in the USA, but the bill is paid for by the government?
i.e. you go to a private doctor and the doctor charges the state.

It seems that you are right. So if I understand correctly, in France, private healthcare services act in an ordinary competetive environment, with all the market and public pressures involved, but the government funds a massive independent Social Security organisation which refunds everyone's costs using tax money? I'm interested to see how that avoids the pitfalls of US private healthcare (ie scammination because money is the motivator) but it does look pretty successful.

 

[CptStern]

private vs public

a railine in British Coulmbia canada was taken over by a private company after more than 60 years of it being looked after by the provincial government ..in 5 years it had more accidents that the previous 60 years

businesses are in it for the money


let me repeat

businesses are in it for the money

therefore the number one raison d'etre is: money ..do you really want a business that solely operates on a profit model? ya sure it's great for the manufacturing/selling of commodities ...but for healthcare?


businesses are in it for the money, governments operate on a loss; both models are diametrically opposed

 

[Bad^Hat]

Only on hl2.net could this:

We (my dad and I) decided to take him home for the night so the bill wouldn't be as high.

Turn into this:

In many ways, the NHS does suck. I'm almost certain I have more firsthand experience of the NHS than anyone else here, so I feel qualified to make that judgement.

Currently it's suffering under the deluge of chronic mismanagement by Labour, and their stupid targets - to the extent that casualty patients will be wheeled out on a trolley and left in the hallway so that the staff can check the box saying they've been dealt with and admitted to a ward.
Once they gave my mums bed in A+E to another patient when she went off to give a urine sample and then when she came back, told her she had to go sit in a chair in the waiting area instead. WTF is that?

From my experience, the treatment (as in, that which is provided by doctors/surgeons rather than nurses) is excellent, but the logistics surrounding the delivery of that treatment, and the nursing care, leaves a lot to be desired.
When I had my accident, the paramedics were brilliant, the field doctor saved my foot, and the treatment in A+E was first rate. The surgery was also fine, although they took three days to decide what they wanted to do, and they ended up doing something completely different from what they told me they were going to do. All fine.
However, after suffering apparently the worst fracture my consultant has ever seen in his life, and being totally incapacitated by it, how much help did I get to live with that injury? **** all. I got three 15 minute physiotherapy sessions while I was in hospital, after which I could just about hop across the room on crutches without falling over (which made me want to puke). No advice on how to have a shower, look after myself or do anything - and then I was discharged far too early back to a family full of disability and terminal illness who couldn't do shit for me. And I couldn't get myself readmitted, even though I really needed to be in hospital. Once you're out, you're out.
In the seven months since, I've had absolutely no help besides the appointments with my consultant to see how well it's healing and my recent surgery. No physio, no help with making a living, nada.

The treatment offered for specialist conditions is also pretty crap. There are only 300 neurologists in the entire country, and I'm very lucky to be able to see one of them regarding my epilepsy. Most people with my condition have to have theirs managed by their GP. In any case, I have to wait a year at a time for a 15 minute appointment.

Not to mention the gross misallocation of resources, the way numerous life-saving/life-extending drugs are withheld on the basis of cost saving - yet the NHS can afford to give people ****ing cosmetic surgery. I worked in correspondence in the Department of Health for a while, and the number of letters we would receive about dying relative with cancer/going blind due to macular degeneration/needs drugs for Alzheimers etc not allowed access to the drugs they require, and the bullshit standardised hand-washing replies we had to send back to be signed by the hundred by the health minister, made my blood boil. And in Scotland, they get a load of things that we in England do not have access to. Very fair and equitable.

Oh, and then there's how more people die from infections picked up whilst in hospital than die on our roads every year. And a large minority of nurses barely speak English or have any kind of people skills.


Also, I'm really not sure what kind of moral problem privatised healthcare presents on the basis that people will choose to overlook health insurance when it's optional. It's not my responsibility to pick up the bill for other people's stupidity or inability to manage their own life. As we are in fact seeing today, if you make the world idiot-proof, you create a world full of idiots.
That being said, I think that healthcare should be funded by the state. Unfortunately that usually means that the clueless wankstains we call politicians get the opportunity to **** it all up in the process. A system like France has would be ideal, where government pays but the service is provided by the private sector which the benefits of competency and patient choice that allows.

It simply seems to me that if the existence of private healthcare - which not everyone can access - substantially reduces the quality of public healthcare - which everyone can access - then it is bringing down the net liberty available in the country and thus abhorrent. Logically, I feel it is likely that such a net reduction does happen. But as I already said, I do not have enough evidence of it to be entirely sure. I guess I'm being premature.

The problem is we already do have a system in place quite similar to France - the Private Finance Initiative, which, counterintuitively, is actually more expensive than simple state funding and has resulted in a string of problems (see the wikipedia article I linked) including, presumably, many of those big IT failures that have been exposed so well in the media - since the NHS IT solutions are privatised. However good the theory or intentions were for PFI, the results have been shit. I regard with some suspicion Blair's old commitment to providing "choice" in the public services - it seems that most people would rather have competence and efficiency. Another problem is New Labour's completely incompetent restructuring of the medical training system which has left the service drastically understaffed.

Indeed, the PFI has been partly responsible for many of the problems you mention (I have no doubt your description of what it's like in the innards is accurate). For example, the first PFI hospitals contain approx 28 per cent fewer beds than the ones they replaced. That article is quite a good exposure of a very big problem. Perhaps the biggest problem.

There is also, finally, a difficulty whereby the NHS is systematically politicised, firstly because it is very tempting for governments - particularly the modern, media-centred New Labour, but certainly the Conservatives as well if they were in government. But secondly, by reporting on "superbugs" and suchlike, the media (justifiably?) turn health concerns into political ones, which means the responses are also moulded by political - and not necessarily scientific - motives.

- although it should be noted at this point that 'superbugs' are not isolated in the UK, existing and rising, across the western world. In fact, apparently there are twice as many deaths from them in the USA as there are here. Oh yeah - according to the Telegraph, PFI shares blame for those as well.

I can't really see how that would happen tbh. I would also argue that private healthcare is available to a much greater percentage of the population than you would think, it's not particularly expensive. I had BUPA cover with my old job, company healthcare schemes are very common in the corporate world certainly. And it's a lot cheaper than car insurance if you're going to take it up privately.
Of course, it's a little different than in, say, the USA, because all the major treatment is still performed by the NHS. Private hospitals simply don't have the resources to deal with things like that. But I'm perfectly happy with the quality of that major treatment, it's the other aspects that are suffering.
The other thing is that the NHS isn't exactly the safety net you might think. Surely decent health insurance would cover lost wages and suchlike as well as the actual treatment. The worst aspect of this whole debacle for me has been the dire financial situation it's left me in. To add insult to injury, I can't get any help under the government's Access to Work scheme because I only have a temporary disability. All I asked for was a cab ride to work and back. Seemingly, they would prefer I claim benefits.
Of course, if I was riding the public sector gravy train, I would have been entitled to six months full sick pay. As opposed to the five days that's standard in most companies I've worked for...
They patch up your injuries, but after that, you're very much on your own. Government support only seems to be available to permanent drains on the economy, people who actually want to work and want a little temporary assistance to do so get told to **** off. The very same people who foot the majority of the tax bill.

All things considered, the pertinent question to my mind is why the hell should we trust the government with providing healthcare for all when they are clearly incapable of doing so?
That's the problem with socialised anything. It puts you in a position of dependence, and when they fail to live up to their end of the bargain, there's very little you can do about it.



I'm confused. Is it not so that in France, the treatment is delivered in a similar style to that which you would find in the USA, but the bill is paid for by the government?
i.e. you go to a private doctor and the doctor charges the state.



One of the reasons the government should not be entrusted with management responsibilities.
I swear, the 100k a year department heads in the DoH wouldn't even hold down a 20k job in the private sector. The civil service is full of lazy, incompetent twats with an arrogant contempt for the public they're supposed to serve.



Hmm.

The complaints about the pheripheral aspects of the NHS all seem completely valid, but might also be said to stem from the general financial troubles the service is experiencing.
But this is unfair. Firstly, 'the government' has been running the NHS since its inception, and complaints have not been so drastically; secondly, the government does not run the NHS. The NHS runs the NHS, and it is a civil service, which, in theory, is not party-political, and which certainly does not change as often as governments are wont to do. Perhaps we should trust the NHS to do the jobs that they are trained, paid, demanded and have the experience to do. In theory, the government is held ultimately responsible, because the money is routing through them. They are supposedly democratically accountable, and certainly they are subject at a moment's notice to media witch-hunts.

The problem is that what is happening now is a party-political reform programme that combines all the worst aspects of private and public services. The corner-cutting, cost-inflating, money-grabbing ways that socialists might reasonably associate with organisations whose sole stated legal purpose is to make profit are facilitated by government management which is idiotic, uninformed, and corrupt, weighted entirely towards appeasements of those aforementioned private interests at the expense of the public good.

THE FLEECING OF HAM - A PLAY IN TWO ACTS

Ham-On-Shrewsbrough NHS Trust: La, la, la. Perhaps it is time to renovate our hospital! This'll cost 30 million, an acceptable solution.
Labour Government: Non. We must make the services more efficient, and cut public spending. To do this we must privilege those trusts willing to buy into the PFI scheme, and, therefore, no substantial funding will be made available to you.
NHS Trust: What if we were to submit a plan that took advantage of this new PFI thing?
Labour Government: Now you're talking!
Associated Consortium: The demolition of the old hospital and the construction of the new one will reduce bed capacity by 25 percent, staff by 20 percent, and will cost ?174 pounds sterling. Also, we get the land on which the hospital will stand/
NHS Trust: D:
Labour Government: Damn straight!

ACT TWO

Two years later...
NHS Trust: How's that building going?
Associated Consortium: Oh, yeah, well, you kinda have to pay us an extra ?150 million, approx. Costs rising, you know how it is.
NHS Trust: D:
Labour Government: ...and we promise that we will continue to improve and reform the NHS to meet the standards of a changing world, and that mobility and adaptibility will be our watchwords...
All freeze.

THE END

Bravo!
This unholy alliance between a government that does not understand business and business that does not need to be ethical actually ends up meaning there is only one way to meet the outrageous costs of PFI: decreasing public services spending. Hello, vicious cycle! Not to mention that the details of these spiralling-cost contracts, despite the fact that they use our tax money, are confidential for reasons of 'commercial confidentiality' under the misnamed Freedom of Information Act. Goodbye, public accountability!

Like Monbiot at the end of that article I linked earlier, I am against the privatisation of most public services by default, on principle, unless I can be convinced otherwise. And yet it seems obvious to anyone from neo-liberals to outright socialists that something has gone drastically wrong here. I'd say you're on the money about the drawbacks of a political education:

With this in mind, I despair when I find that a google search for 'stop PFI' or 'end PFI' turns up only socialist party results. Multipartisan pressure group, plz.

It seems that you are right. So if I understand correctly, in France, private healthcare services act in an ordinary competetive environment, with all the market and public pressures involved, but the government funds a massive independent Social Security organisation which refunds everyone's costs using tax money? I'm interested to see how that avoids the pitfalls of US private healthcare (ie scammination because money is the motivator) but it does look pretty successful.

 

[Saturos]

You really are a biggoted, igorant asshole.

Just shut up bruo. :|

I'd prefer to have some constructive criticism on why I might be wrong rather than random insults. It not only shows a total lack of debating skills on your part, but a lack of intelligence as well.

Futhermore, you spelt "ignorant" wrong.

 

[Unfocused]

Hahaha@Bad^Hat's post.

Good to hear that he's OK.

Youtube video time?

 

[Solaris]

Saturos you called all poor people and minorities assholes.

 

[Saturos]

Saturos you called all poor people and minorities assholes.

Well ok, some people just go through rough times and need help, that I can understand. What irks me is those that think everyone else owes them a living and goes off and has like 8 or 9 kids. THAT, is what pisses me off with some of those in the low-income class.

Some of these people also have no clue how the government gets the money, or either they don't care. As long as they get their checks. It it those who actually work that pay for everything, not the government. The government in theory, HAS no money. It is OUR money. Taxes friend. Taxes.

More and more people are filing bankruptcy in the US, more and more are going on welfare, and if things don't change soon, it's gonna get ugly here. The working class is the life's blood of the U.S., (and other countries as well) and both the rich and the poor will fall flat on their faces if they don't give the worker bees some breathing room.

In essense, the "middle class" is the modern age "poor" class of slaves. The middle class are the "minorities".

 

[CptStern]

Well ok, some people just go through rough times and need help, that I can understand. What irks me is those that think everyone else owes them a living and goes off and has like 8 or 9 kids. THAT, is what pisses me off with some of those in the low-income class.

you're digging yourself a bigger hole ..the majority of the poor are single mothers and children ..what you're talking about is a very small percentage ..but who the **** cares about a small percentage when the MAJORITY need assistance? should we deny them basic existence because a very small portion may be defrauding the government?



http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/mar/30/povertys-face-80-percent-of-poor-americans-work/