Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think we've seen enough posts about how the NHS was already in dire trouble simply from the failure of socialism to magically provide the unlimited funds they need.
But now things are much worse....
NHS held to ransom: Hospitals in IT meltdown
NHS cyberattack: Is your hospital affected?
View attachment 126399
Operations being canceled. Delays at all levels of health care. People being turned away for treatment.
Now of course, have us hospitals ever been hit by a cyber attack? Sure. But unlike the union-government-employees that run cyber-security at government run hospitals, our capitalist based profit-motivated hospitals seem to have a better time dealing with it.
Of course that costs money. Thankfully the NHS is far cheaper. And we can see the results of that.
But what makes this particularly humorous to me, is that this is one of the areas where the left-wing claims our system sucks.
I have pointed out many times that various rankings used around the world to claim the US healthcare is terrible and everyone else has a better system, none of them actually look specifically at the quality of care.
They look at nearly everything except quality of care. As if the quality and results of care is a static thing, and all that matters is cost and amenities, as if we can cut costs in half and the quality will remain the same.
But related to this specific event, some rankings specifically look at how computerized the health care system is.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf
On page 22 of the Common wealth fund ranking they say:
"Efficiency indicators from the 2012 survey include whether or not primary care practices have “multifunctional clinical information technology.” To be defined as a primary care practice with multifunctional IT functionality, the practice must have an electronic medical record (EMR) system with two or more functions for ordering, patient information, panel information, and decision support."
In other words, if only we had computerized electronic medical record system, we could be as efficient as the NHS is now.
Granted that has nothing to do with the quality of care... I'll take a high quality doctor writing notes on paper, who can see me in a week instead of year, over anything the NHS has. But that's a negative in their comparison, and so our health care sucks.
If only we could be as computerized as the NHS.
View attachment 126404
By the way, doesn't this sound familiar? Like healthcare.gov?
Funny how we keep getting the same results with government intervention, but then everyone is constantly surprised by problems.
Andy you make a lot of assumptions. Back them up with links.A lot of guessing going on here Andy. US healthcare is more expensive because it is s complicated and there are so many people who need to make a profit out of your illness.Its not ideological. Its an accurate summary of the problems facing our right to healthcare.Funny that you claim it is difficult dealing with an ideological standpoint right before launching into an ideological standpoint...
Yeah, everyone says that. Everything you claimed I have seen and read, and heard the endless problems that counter it.
I have already posted some on this thread, and dozens more throughout this forum.
The only thing I can't counter is that your system is cheaper. Of course you get worse care. So I would expect crappy care to be cheaper.
But I'm even wondering how true that is.
I want answer to my prior question. I want to know just how much money you make, to give me an estimate on how much in taxes you pay.
My bet is that you paid far more in taxes, than I have ever paid in insurance premiums.
Even then, your taxes are not all the taxes you pay. Wages in the UK are lower than in the US. People who immigrate to the US from the UK, routinely say they get a pay-hike coming here.
The primary reason for that, is the higher taxes you levy against employers, results in them paying employees less.
So you are in effect paying taxes that you never actually see on your pay stub. My bet is that UK citizens pay a ton more than most Americans for your lesser quality care. And I am almost 100% certain that YOU as individual have paid tons more than I have for care.
Thats why the cost of medication in the US dwarfs the cost of those countries with sensible health policies. Just google it.
First you haven't actually proven the claim.
How much were your last 10 years of wages on average?
I want to see how much you have spent in taxes, paying for the NHS, and compare that to how much I have paid for private health insurance.
I'll give you a hint. My private insurance is $80 a month. How much are your taxes?
Every time I compare the numbers, I'm not seeing that your system is all that much cheaper.
The average wage in the UK is just £27,600. That's only $35,800 a year. The average here in $50,000.
And most of that can be traced to taxes on business, the largest of which goes to NHS.
Additionally out of your income, you'll pay £3,000 in income taxes, and an additional £2200 in national insurance "contributions"... The irony is that your "contributions" do not pay for the majority of NHS care. Your income taxes do. So most of that money is all for health care.
That doesn't include services and fees on patients at the time they get health care.
Nor does it include people who pay money to get expedited services. Thousands of UK citizens pay the fees, to get their surgeries and needs, pushed to the front of line.
Nor does it include the hundreds of thousands of UK citizens that travel outside the UK for health care.
View attachment 128265
Treatment costs in the UK, are vastly more expensive than elsewhere in Europe. Is it because of all the profiteering that is happening in the NHS?
Even better, most of the hospitals these patients are going to, are private explicitly for-profit hospitals. Interesting that you claim it's the for profit motive that is driving up prices, when in reality, it's the for-profit hospitals that people in YOUR country are going to.
I have already given a detailed answer on why US care is more expensive. And the biggest reason is government programs. Medicare and Medicaid do not pay enough money to cover the cost of treatment. This is by design. In order for hospitals to stay open, they must charge private patients a higher price.
Every time you see a quoted price from an American hospital, that's the price of care, plus covering the cost of all the hospitals government patients.
Regardless, my point still remains. You are paying far more in taxes, than I ever have for health insurance. By a massive margin I wager.
I think we've seen enough posts about how the NHS was already in dire trouble simply from the failure of socialism to magically provide the unlimited funds they need.
But now things are much worse....
NHS held to ransom: Hospitals in IT meltdown
NHS cyberattack: Is your hospital affected?
View attachment 126399
Operations being canceled. Delays at all levels of health care. People being turned away for treatment.
Now of course, have us hospitals ever been hit by a cyber attack? Sure. But unlike the union-government-employees that run cyber-security at government run hospitals, our capitalist based profit-motivated hospitals seem to have a better time dealing with it.
Of course that costs money. Thankfully the NHS is far cheaper. And we can see the results of that.
But what makes this particularly humorous to me, is that this is one of the areas where the left-wing claims our system sucks.
I have pointed out many times that various rankings used around the world to claim the US healthcare is terrible and everyone else has a better system, none of them actually look specifically at the quality of care.
They look at nearly everything except quality of care. As if the quality and results of care is a static thing, and all that matters is cost and amenities, as if we can cut costs in half and the quality will remain the same.
But related to this specific event, some rankings specifically look at how computerized the health care system is.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf
On page 22 of the Common wealth fund ranking they say:
"Efficiency indicators from the 2012 survey include whether or not primary care practices have “multifunctional clinical information technology.” To be defined as a primary care practice with multifunctional IT functionality, the practice must have an electronic medical record (EMR) system with two or more functions for ordering, patient information, panel information, and decision support."
In other words, if only we had computerized electronic medical record system, we could be as efficient as the NHS is now.
Granted that has nothing to do with the quality of care... I'll take a high quality doctor writing notes on paper, who can see me in a week instead of year, over anything the NHS has. But that's a negative in their comparison, and so our health care sucks.
If only we could be as computerized as the NHS.
View attachment 126404
By the way, doesn't this sound familiar? Like healthcare.gov?
Funny how we keep getting the same results with government intervention, but then everyone is constantly surprised by problems.
The reason why the NHS is in trouble is because the Tories refuse to put money into it. They want a system like the American system where the politicians can be on the take, insurance companies make money and would be ever grateful to the bastards who gave them the opportunity, so they need an excuse to destroy the NHS, and that opportunity is only given if they actually destroy it themselves.
I think we've seen enough posts about how the NHS was already in dire trouble simply from the failure of socialism to magically provide the unlimited funds they need.
But now things are much worse....
NHS held to ransom: Hospitals in IT meltdown
NHS cyberattack: Is your hospital affected?
View attachment 126399
Operations being canceled. Delays at all levels of health care. People being turned away for treatment.
Now of course, have us hospitals ever been hit by a cyber attack? Sure. But unlike the union-government-employees that run cyber-security at government run hospitals, our capitalist based profit-motivated hospitals seem to have a better time dealing with it.
Of course that costs money. Thankfully the NHS is far cheaper. And we can see the results of that.
But what makes this particularly humorous to me, is that this is one of the areas where the left-wing claims our system sucks.
I have pointed out many times that various rankings used around the world to claim the US healthcare is terrible and everyone else has a better system, none of them actually look specifically at the quality of care.
They look at nearly everything except quality of care. As if the quality and results of care is a static thing, and all that matters is cost and amenities, as if we can cut costs in half and the quality will remain the same.
But related to this specific event, some rankings specifically look at how computerized the health care system is.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf
On page 22 of the Common wealth fund ranking they say:
"Efficiency indicators from the 2012 survey include whether or not primary care practices have “multifunctional clinical information technology.” To be defined as a primary care practice with multifunctional IT functionality, the practice must have an electronic medical record (EMR) system with two or more functions for ordering, patient information, panel information, and decision support."
In other words, if only we had computerized electronic medical record system, we could be as efficient as the NHS is now.
Granted that has nothing to do with the quality of care... I'll take a high quality doctor writing notes on paper, who can see me in a week instead of year, over anything the NHS has. But that's a negative in their comparison, and so our health care sucks.
If only we could be as computerized as the NHS.
View attachment 126404
By the way, doesn't this sound familiar? Like healthcare.gov?
Funny how we keep getting the same results with government intervention, but then everyone is constantly surprised by problems.
The reason why the NHS is in trouble is because the Tories refuse to put money into it. They want a system like the American system where the politicians can be on the take, insurance companies make money and would be ever grateful to the bastards who gave them the opportunity, so they need an excuse to destroy the NHS, and that opportunity is only given if they actually destroy it themselves.
I think we've seen enough posts about how the NHS was already in dire trouble simply from the failure of socialism to magically provide the unlimited funds they need.
But now things are much worse....
NHS held to ransom: Hospitals in IT meltdown
NHS cyberattack: Is your hospital affected?
View attachment 126399
Operations being canceled. Delays at all levels of health care. People being turned away for treatment.
Now of course, have us hospitals ever been hit by a cyber attack? Sure. But unlike the union-government-employees that run cyber-security at government run hospitals, our capitalist based profit-motivated hospitals seem to have a better time dealing with it.
Of course that costs money. Thankfully the NHS is far cheaper. And we can see the results of that.
But what makes this particularly humorous to me, is that this is one of the areas where the left-wing claims our system sucks.
I have pointed out many times that various rankings used around the world to claim the US healthcare is terrible and everyone else has a better system, none of them actually look specifically at the quality of care.
They look at nearly everything except quality of care. As if the quality and results of care is a static thing, and all that matters is cost and amenities, as if we can cut costs in half and the quality will remain the same.
But related to this specific event, some rankings specifically look at how computerized the health care system is.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf
On page 22 of the Common wealth fund ranking they say:
"Efficiency indicators from the 2012 survey include whether or not primary care practices have “multifunctional clinical information technology.” To be defined as a primary care practice with multifunctional IT functionality, the practice must have an electronic medical record (EMR) system with two or more functions for ordering, patient information, panel information, and decision support."
In other words, if only we had computerized electronic medical record system, we could be as efficient as the NHS is now.
Granted that has nothing to do with the quality of care... I'll take a high quality doctor writing notes on paper, who can see me in a week instead of year, over anything the NHS has. But that's a negative in their comparison, and so our health care sucks.
If only we could be as computerized as the NHS.
View attachment 126404
By the way, doesn't this sound familiar? Like healthcare.gov?
Funny how we keep getting the same results with government intervention, but then everyone is constantly surprised by problems.
The reason why the NHS is in trouble is because the Tories refuse to put money into it. They want a system like the American system where the politicians can be on the take, insurance companies make money and would be ever grateful to the bastards who gave them the opportunity, so they need an excuse to destroy the NHS, and that opportunity is only given if they actually destroy it themselves.
This is classic left-wing thinking. Completely ignore the fact that money is finite.... and just assume "They simply refused to just put more money into"... because in left-wing world, you have the mindset of a toddler demanding mommy and daddy buy them everything.
Again, just a few years ago, the UK government posted a bond sale. This is where they issue bonds, and people buy them. This is how the UK government borrows money.
The sale failed.
BBC NEWS | Business | UK government bond auction fails
"The UK Treasury has failed to sell all its government bonds in an auction for the first time since 2002."
That is exactly what happened to Greece, only on a much larger scale.
Basically the people around the world, said to the UK government... no we're not going to lend you anymore.
So when you live in this mythology that the UK government has a magic pot of endless gold to dribble all over your endless demands for services... you are just flat out wrong.
You are wrong. Period.
The Tories are not the ones preventing you from just endlessly funding whatever you want.....MATH is.
I think we've seen enough posts about how the NHS was already in dire trouble simply from the failure of socialism to magically provide the unlimited funds they need.
But now things are much worse....
NHS held to ransom: Hospitals in IT meltdown
NHS cyberattack: Is your hospital affected?
View attachment 126399
Operations being canceled. Delays at all levels of health care. People being turned away for treatment.
Now of course, have us hospitals ever been hit by a cyber attack? Sure. But unlike the union-government-employees that run cyber-security at government run hospitals, our capitalist based profit-motivated hospitals seem to have a better time dealing with it.
Of course that costs money. Thankfully the NHS is far cheaper. And we can see the results of that.
But what makes this particularly humorous to me, is that this is one of the areas where the left-wing claims our system sucks.
I have pointed out many times that various rankings used around the world to claim the US healthcare is terrible and everyone else has a better system, none of them actually look specifically at the quality of care.
They look at nearly everything except quality of care. As if the quality and results of care is a static thing, and all that matters is cost and amenities, as if we can cut costs in half and the quality will remain the same.
But related to this specific event, some rankings specifically look at how computerized the health care system is.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf
On page 22 of the Common wealth fund ranking they say:
"Efficiency indicators from the 2012 survey include whether or not primary care practices have “multifunctional clinical information technology.” To be defined as a primary care practice with multifunctional IT functionality, the practice must have an electronic medical record (EMR) system with two or more functions for ordering, patient information, panel information, and decision support."
In other words, if only we had computerized electronic medical record system, we could be as efficient as the NHS is now.
Granted that has nothing to do with the quality of care... I'll take a high quality doctor writing notes on paper, who can see me in a week instead of year, over anything the NHS has. But that's a negative in their comparison, and so our health care sucks.
If only we could be as computerized as the NHS.
View attachment 126404
By the way, doesn't this sound familiar? Like healthcare.gov?
Funny how we keep getting the same results with government intervention, but then everyone is constantly surprised by problems.
The reason why the NHS is in trouble is because the Tories refuse to put money into it. They want a system like the American system where the politicians can be on the take, insurance companies make money and would be ever grateful to the bastards who gave them the opportunity, so they need an excuse to destroy the NHS, and that opportunity is only given if they actually destroy it themselves.
This is classic left-wing thinking. Completely ignore the fact that money is finite.... and just assume "They simply refused to just put more money into"... because in left-wing world, you have the mindset of a toddler demanding mommy and daddy buy them everything.
Again, just a few years ago, the UK government posted a bond sale. This is where they issue bonds, and people buy them. This is how the UK government borrows money.
The sale failed.
BBC NEWS | Business | UK government bond auction fails
"The UK Treasury has failed to sell all its government bonds in an auction for the first time since 2002."
That is exactly what happened to Greece, only on a much larger scale.
Basically the people around the world, said to the UK government... no we're not going to lend you anymore.
So when you live in this mythology that the UK government has a magic pot of endless gold to dribble all over your endless demands for services... you are just flat out wrong.
You are wrong. Period.
The Tories are not the ones preventing you from just endlessly funding whatever you want.....MATH is.
Actually, no, your attack WON'T work.
Here's why. I know what I'm talking about.
The NHS as a percentage of GDP for the UK is LOWER than most first world countries.
NHS spending 'to fall as share of GDP by 2020' - BBC News
"David Cameron is likely to preside over the largest sustained fall in NHS spending as a share of GDP since 1951, an analysis by the King's Fund says."
UK spending as a percentage of GDP has been going down since the Tories got into govt.
Health expenditure, total (% of GDP) | Data
UK healthcare spending here is at 6.7% of GDP.
The US is on 13.1%, the Euro area is on 8.7%, Europe and Cental Asia is on 8.1%, the EU is on 8.3%. The UK is LOW.
Here's it's at 8.5% in 2013, but still only two countries are lower, and one of those is for a reason that it's a very transient country with a lot of GDP being made by people who live outside of the country (it has the highest per capita car accident rate due to the low number of people who actually live there, but the high number of people who actually go there).
Now, the people want healthcare, they want the NHS to work. The Tories are taking money away that people would actually like to be spent on the NHS.
However the Tories want a system that would see healthcare spending go to US rates of like 13%, but lots of this money going into the pockets of rich people. So, it's not me that thinks money is infinite, I'm seeing this for what it is, that the people want health care and are willing to spend 9% of GDP to get that, which is LOWER than US levels, but would see a BETTER system in place.
The Tories are the ones trying to make themselves richer, and nothing else, don't try and bullshit me with anything else.
I think we've seen enough posts about how the NHS was already in dire trouble simply from the failure of socialism to magically provide the unlimited funds they need.
But now things are much worse....
NHS held to ransom: Hospitals in IT meltdown
NHS cyberattack: Is your hospital affected?
View attachment 126399
Operations being canceled. Delays at all levels of health care. People being turned away for treatment.
Now of course, have us hospitals ever been hit by a cyber attack? Sure. But unlike the union-government-employees that run cyber-security at government run hospitals, our capitalist based profit-motivated hospitals seem to have a better time dealing with it.
Of course that costs money. Thankfully the NHS is far cheaper. And we can see the results of that.
But what makes this particularly humorous to me, is that this is one of the areas where the left-wing claims our system sucks.
I have pointed out many times that various rankings used around the world to claim the US healthcare is terrible and everyone else has a better system, none of them actually look specifically at the quality of care.
They look at nearly everything except quality of care. As if the quality and results of care is a static thing, and all that matters is cost and amenities, as if we can cut costs in half and the quality will remain the same.
But related to this specific event, some rankings specifically look at how computerized the health care system is.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf
On page 22 of the Common wealth fund ranking they say:
"Efficiency indicators from the 2012 survey include whether or not primary care practices have “multifunctional clinical information technology.” To be defined as a primary care practice with multifunctional IT functionality, the practice must have an electronic medical record (EMR) system with two or more functions for ordering, patient information, panel information, and decision support."
In other words, if only we had computerized electronic medical record system, we could be as efficient as the NHS is now.
Granted that has nothing to do with the quality of care... I'll take a high quality doctor writing notes on paper, who can see me in a week instead of year, over anything the NHS has. But that's a negative in their comparison, and so our health care sucks.
If only we could be as computerized as the NHS.
View attachment 126404
By the way, doesn't this sound familiar? Like healthcare.gov?
Funny how we keep getting the same results with government intervention, but then everyone is constantly surprised by problems.
The reason why the NHS is in trouble is because the Tories refuse to put money into it. They want a system like the American system where the politicians can be on the take, insurance companies make money and would be ever grateful to the bastards who gave them the opportunity, so they need an excuse to destroy the NHS, and that opportunity is only given if they actually destroy it themselves.
This is classic left-wing thinking. Completely ignore the fact that money is finite.... and just assume "They simply refused to just put more money into"... because in left-wing world, you have the mindset of a toddler demanding mommy and daddy buy them everything.
Again, just a few years ago, the UK government posted a bond sale. This is where they issue bonds, and people buy them. This is how the UK government borrows money.
The sale failed.
BBC NEWS | Business | UK government bond auction fails
"The UK Treasury has failed to sell all its government bonds in an auction for the first time since 2002."
That is exactly what happened to Greece, only on a much larger scale.
Basically the people around the world, said to the UK government... no we're not going to lend you anymore.
So when you live in this mythology that the UK government has a magic pot of endless gold to dribble all over your endless demands for services... you are just flat out wrong.
You are wrong. Period.
The Tories are not the ones preventing you from just endlessly funding whatever you want.....MATH is.
Actually, no, your attack WON'T work.
Here's why. I know what I'm talking about.
The NHS as a percentage of GDP for the UK is LOWER than most first world countries.
NHS spending 'to fall as share of GDP by 2020' - BBC News
"David Cameron is likely to preside over the largest sustained fall in NHS spending as a share of GDP since 1951, an analysis by the King's Fund says."
UK spending as a percentage of GDP has been going down since the Tories got into govt.
Health expenditure, total (% of GDP) | Data
UK healthcare spending here is at 6.7% of GDP.
The US is on 13.1%, the Euro area is on 8.7%, Europe and Cental Asia is on 8.1%, the EU is on 8.3%. The UK is LOW.
Here's it's at 8.5% in 2013, but still only two countries are lower, and one of those is for a reason that it's a very transient country with a lot of GDP being made by people who live outside of the country (it has the highest per capita car accident rate due to the low number of people who actually live there, but the high number of people who actually go there).
Now, the people want healthcare, they want the NHS to work. The Tories are taking money away that people would actually like to be spent on the NHS.
However the Tories want a system that would see healthcare spending go to US rates of like 13%, but lots of this money going into the pockets of rich people. So, it's not me that thinks money is infinite, I'm seeing this for what it is, that the people want health care and are willing to spend 9% of GDP to get that, which is LOWER than US levels, but would see a BETTER system in place.
The Tories are the ones trying to make themselves richer, and nothing else, don't try and bullshit me with anything else.
Now this is even more hilarious.
For hundreds of posts, across dozens of threads.... what is the number one thing that left-wingers claim is the problem with the US health care system?
It costs too much.
Here you are, now tell me that the UK is spending too little, and they should spend more and more, because the amount you spend is lower as a % of GDP. The exact measure, spending as a % of GDP, left-wingers point to to prove our system costs to much.
So while left-wingers here and complaining we're spending too much as % of GDP, left-wingers over there are claiming they spend too little as a % of GDP.
Do you people ever have a consistent view on ANYTHING?!
