COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

UK now has one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world, according to

The main problem with the NHS isn't the system itself it's the fact that one third of doctors are fucking useless and don't give a shit about their patients.
Add to that that another third can't speak English so end up giving out the wrong medication or amputating your foot because you have tonsillitis.
That leaves the remaining third to pick up all the slack and do the work of three people.

Then we have the junior doctors that demand more money and fewer hours, despite getting paid more and working less than most other people in the UK.

Saying they need 75,000 more doctors isn't true. They just need 75,000 competent doctors.
 
So, the NHS does not incentivize?

It doesn't attract the flowers of British Youth?

You would think that they would want to pursue selfless sacrifice for the greater good...
 
Rachel_X said:
The main problem with the NHS isn't the system itself it's the fact that one third of doctors are fucking useless and don't give a shit about their patients.
Add to that that another third can't speak English so end up giving out the wrong medication or amputating your foot because you have tonsillitis.
That leaves the remaining third to pick up all the slack and do the work of three people.

Then we have the junior doctors that demand more money and fewer hours, despite getting paid more and working less than most other people in the UK.

Saying they need 75,000 more doctors isn't true. They just need 75,000 competent doctors.
Click to expand...

Im sure you dont realize what you really meant
 
those that give you free lunch

eat your for breakfast

NOTHING, except a mothers love and care is free
 
Liberals don't care if the UK's entire healthcare system is a disaster...it's free!!

:rolleyes:
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
Explain to us how anyone, specially the state, can provide something for nothing?
Click to expand...

It can't. It is provided by National Insurance contributions and general taxation income, but the cost per head of population is far less than health costs in the USA, before or after Obamacare - for universal cover free at the point of delivery.
 
We're repeating a topic that has been done to death in another thread.

There is a complex answer to that, but the difference between the top country and the US is 5 years, statistically irrelevant because of our urban youth problem and the Brit government cooking the books on the infant mortality rate.

Besides, I'm seeing no sound argument as to why it is "better" only that is is cheaper.

In fact the only non-American poster to address the topic in this thread is not painting a very pretty picture...

;) ;)

Mama always said, you get what you pay for!
 
oggbashan said:
It can't. It is provided by National Insurance contributions and general taxation income, but the cost per head of population is far less than health costs in the USA, before or after Obamacare - for universal cover free at the point of delivery.
Click to expand...

you didnt read Oh Pee
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
Far less?
Click to expand...

And that includes the payments from all the UK citizens like me who have health insurance as well.

We can use the National Health Service for those things it is good for like trauma care, get seen by consultant specialists as a private patient faster, use private hospitals for minor or 'cold' surgery such as hip replacements, use private dentists etc. Or the health insurance can just provide money when when are admitted to hospital.

But even with all the extras private health insurance brings, the total health costs for the whole of the UK is significantly less than paid by the US.

The best health care in the US is the best in the world. But that is of no comfort to a US citizen who can't afford it, or whose insurance company won't pay for it.

No matter how poor you are in the UK, the NHS will provide health care. It might not be the best, or the fastest, but it is there for you.

Other European countries also have universal health care on different models of financing it, but very few would deny health care to anyone.
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
We're repeating a topic that has been done to death in another thread.

There is a complex answer to that, but the difference between the top country and the US is 5 years, statistically irrelevant because of our urban youth problem and the Brit government cooking the books on the infant mortality rate.

Besides, I'm seeing no sound argument as to why it is "better" only that is is cheaper.

In fact the only non-American poster to address the topic in this thread is not painting a very pretty picture...

;) ;)

Mama always said, you get what you pay for!
Click to expand...

The Left clings to the socialized medicine mirage just like they do with global warming, the war on women, and evil corporations. No amount of evidence or facts will ever get them to admit they are wrong about anything.
 
If the program is so good...

:eek:

Why buy insurance? Why not just shoot for the free at the point?
 
i-axed-you-a-question_fb_3027841.jpg
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
If the program is so good...

:eek:

Why buy insurance? Why not just shoot for the free at the point?
Click to expand...

All British politicians recognise that the NHS is flawed. They disagree about how to make it better.

But if you can afford it, buying private health insurance means you can use the NHS in an emergency and go private when the system is slower or less efficient.

For example:

If I want an X-ray, I can book an appointment through the NHS, wait a few days and return to the hospital for the X-ray, then wait a week or so for the result to be sent to my doctor.

BUT - privately, I can call the private hospital on my mobile, book an appointment at a time to suit me, within an hour from now if I want, and the result is emailed to my doctor today. I can either pay through my health insurance, or pay by credit or debit card on the spot.

Health Insurance, or paying privately, means I can be treated faster for some conditions. I get the best of both.

I have a long-standing condition that requires physiotherapy. The NHS will provide some physiotherapy but not really as much as I need. I go private and visit a physiotherapist every five weeks, paying for it myself. The NHS would pay for a physiotherapist every six months. But I am under the care of an NHS consultant surgeon who reviews my condition annually, or six monthly if I have deteriorated in the previous year. I have had the condition for 35 years and I have more movement than I had 20 years ago because the combination of NHS medical advice and private treatment has worked for me.

Initially I couldn't claim under my health insurance because it was an existing condition. Now they would pay, but that would increase my premium cost because I need physiotherapy so often. It is cheaper for me to pay the physiotherapist myself.

The NHS consultant surgeon and his medical team work with and consult with my private physiotherapist, who would refer me back to the surgeon if necessary.

I can afford to pick and choose the public or private medical care that is best for me. If I couldn't, the NHS would treat me - free, but not as extensively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
David McCallum, star of hit TV series 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E.' and 'NCIS,' dies at 90
Replies
8
Views
364
JoeBeans2751
J
TarnishedPenny
Sperm donor alleged to have fathered 550 children faces legal action
Replies
7
Views
449
John Doe
John Doe
JenniZinc
The reality of happy ending massage parlours (from someone who's worked in one)
12 13 14
Replies
329
Views
38K
JenniZinc
JenniZinc
F
'Leave It To Beaver' actor Tony Dow dies at 77 after cancer battle
Replies
8
Views
550
CarlyAnn
CarlyAnn
M
From hobby to something much bigger
Replies
0
Views
416
Moonshine57
M
Back
Top