Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Nobby, people who know about the NHSFollow

#1 Sep 23 2008 at 11:13 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,731 posts
Help me out here.

I'm watching Gordon Brown's speech on youtube and he's just said that in order for the NHS to achieve standards equal to those with private healthcare,

"in April, a Labour Britain will become the first country in the whole world to offer free universal check-ups for everyone over 40"

I take "universal check-ups" to mean you can go for a doctor's appointment, a regular check-up (that it's recommended you do every 6 months, right?) for free. But can't you already? Do over 40s have to pay now or does this mean something different?

Edited, Sep 23rd 2008 3:07pm by Youshutup
#2 Sep 23 2008 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Youshutup wrote:

I take "universal check-ups" to mean you can go for a doctor's appointment, a regular check-up (that it's recommended you do every 6 months, right?) for free. But can't you already? Do over 40s have to pay now or does this mean something different?
At the moment it's only a "right" for over 75s.

I can't imagine a GP turning down anyone who asks for a check-up, but there isn't currently a specification for what needs checking unless you're old and smelly.

Although you're young and sprightly, if you ask your GP to give you a once-over (BP, BMI, prostate, respiratory function, cholesterol etc.), she or he will almost certainly oblige. Ask for one every week, he'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar, but 6-monthly - not a bad idea.

Nobody has to pay for healthcare in the UK unless they're from outside the European Union, and even then, emergency treatment (trauma, fracture, sudden onset illness) is free to any visitor to our shores. Non-EU folk would have to pay for any subsequent medication, non-emergency surgery or inpatient care.

So it's sort of a sound bite, except that promoting regular check-ups for over-40s and making it an explicit 'right' could really help our preventive care.

Nice move, IMHO.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#3 Sep 23 2008 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,731 posts
Despite your explanation, I'm still going to go with "he made up something that sounded good but already actually exists"
#4 Sep 23 2008 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Youshutup wrote:
Despite your explanation, I'm still going to go with "he made up something that sounded good but already actually exists"
Mehh.

When Blair took office we already had a policy that patients should not have to face long waits, but waiting times averaged at 25x what they are now. They achieved that by specifying what patients have a 'right' to, and coming down hard when doctors failed.

This could save billions in preventable conditions by promoting preventive screening instead of forking out a packet on treating conditions that became acute through late detection.

Oh, and save thousands of lives too.

A Good move.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#5 Sep 23 2008 at 7:54 PM Rating: Decent
Nobby wrote:
So it's sort of a sound bite, except that promoting regular check-ups for over-40s and making it an explicit 'right' could really help our preventive care.

Nice move, IMHO.


What about your teefs?
#6 Sep 23 2008 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
So, the question then from a Yank who cares f'uck all for for people who can't afford their own health care or provide their own insurance is...

what is the logic behind deciding that health care, in any form, is a right?

I get that worshiping how I want to is a right.
I get that saying what I want is a right.
I get that meeting up with like minded yahoos and pissing about the g is a right.

None of those, though, requires that the rest of the public chip in and pay for me to take advantage of them. None of them requires the sacrifice of another individual's right to anything.

With health care being a right, someone else has to pay for it. In this country, it would be similar to welfare, requiring me to pay for someone who is otherwise unable, or unwilling, to cover their own sh;t.

I admit, I am one of those who doesn't think every life is worth the same as the next. We may all start out that way, but as life advances it becomes decidedly untrue. I'm okay with the fact that life isn't fair and people get sick and die. I know that makes me a monster, but I'm okay with that.

And, if you don't feel like an answer, f'uck you, too, for consistency.
#7 Sep 23 2008 at 9:03 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

I assumed that by putting "right" in quotes, he was implying that it was a patient's "right" within the system, not necessarily a comment on universal or philisophical rights.



#8 Sep 23 2008 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
With health care being a right, someone else has to pay for it. In this country, it would be similar to welfare, requiring me to pay for someone who is otherwise unable, or unwilling, to cover their own sh;t.


Ummm...Moe, while I respect your right to not want to pay for other peoples health care, why do you choose to live in the USA wich has the highest per capita expenditure on health care in the world? in fact nearly 3 times that of the UK?? It seems a bit daft thats all.

I was just wondering.....

Edited, Sep 24th 2008 5:08am by paulsol
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#9 Sep 23 2008 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I assumed that by putting "right" in quotes, he was implying that it was a patient's "right" within the system, not necessarily a comment on universal or philisophical rights.

And that's great, but I'm curious about the mind set, because in this country, the cooks actually call it a right, as in endowed by their creator with. Emergency rooms have to treat people, regardless of ability to pay because it has been defined as something to which people have a right. To me, if you're a f'uck up who chooses not to buy health insurance, or get a job that provides it, or have some means of paying for your care otherwise, you shouldn't be able to expect someone to provide you with a service, which is all health care is.
#10 Sep 23 2008 at 9:22 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Ummm...Moe, while I respect your right to not want to pay for other peoples health care, why do you choose to live in the USA wich has the highest per capita expenditure on health care in the world? in fact nearly 3 times that of the UK?? It seems a bit daft.

The benefits outweigh the negatives, in my opinion. Also, it doesn't cost me, or most of the people I know, much at all. We have jobs that aren't at Walmart and have health insurance. The high expenditure comes largely from the billions wasted on paying for people who can't be responsible enough to take care of their own. The indirect cost to us comes from the exorbitant taxes we pay to cover that sh;t.
#11 Sep 23 2008 at 9:29 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
The indirect cost to us comes from the exorbitant taxes we pay to cover that sh;t.


Sorry.

Maybe I'm being thick. But what difference is there between the taxes you pay for people to recieve free health care in the US where you dont have universal free health care, as opposed to the taxes that we pay in other countries where we do have free universal health care?

Except, of course that we get around about 3 times more value for money.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#12 Sep 23 2008 at 9:37 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Maybe I'm being thick. But what difference is there between the taxes you pay for people to recieve free health care in the US where you dont have universal free health care, as opposed to the taxes that we pay in other countries where we do have free universal health care?

If it stops being a "right", my taxes no longer have to cover it. The difference is that we're not socialists over here (well, not officially, but soon enough the hand out crowd will be too large to vote out), and we shouldn't have to pay for it at all. Quite a few people in this country feel the way I do. We have not embraced the "right" to care thing. In countries where medicine is socialized, it has largely been bought in to by people and they don't mind the limitations.
#13 Sep 23 2008 at 9:46 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
So you don't object to having great wedges of cash taken out of your pocket by the Republicans to be spent on building hospitals and schools for Iraqi and Afghani orphans and helping out the folk on Wall Street who have found themselves struggling to make ends meet.

But you do object to the liberals taking huge chunks of cash out of your pocket to pay for the health and education of your fellow Americans?

Ok. gotcha.

You Republicans are more complicated than I thought!
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#14 Sep 23 2008 at 11:19 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
So you don't object to having great wedges of cash taken out of your pocket by the Republicans to be spent on building hospitals and schools for Iraqi and Afghani orphans and helping out the folk on Wall Street who have found themselves struggling to make ends meet.

Don't put words in my mouth, you insipid little sh;t. This thread is about health care. We take it one thing at a time.
Quote:
But you do object to the liberals taking huge chunks of cash out of your pocket to pay for the health and education of your fellow Americans?

When did we start talking about education? On the health thing though, you got it.
Quote:
You Republicans are more complicated than I thought!

I am not a Republican.
#15 Sep 23 2008 at 11:41 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
While I'm happy to live (and work) in a country with socialised healthcare, I don't argue that it's better because it's state funded.

If I lived in a country with affordable private healthcare I'd prolly be happy enough, especially if decent employers provided adequate insurance.

What would **** me off would be if I had to pay insurance or fees, on top of a massive healthcare tax burden.

So if you (or your employer) have to pay for your care, why are you throwing greenbacks at the Govt to not provide care? That's what doesn't make sense to me.

____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 198 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (198)