Debate: NHS - Human right or Waste of Money?

[Simon Brown]

Many candidates for the us elections are including a US NHS in their campeign. Is a National Health Service a waste of money - or an essential savior of many lives. If so, what treatments should the NHS offer and should certain people not be allowed to use it?

[Olli]

Please stop those debates

[topezia]

Please stop those debates

Bugster if you do not like the thread just do not participate into the debate :wink:

I think a functional NHS is of tremendous importance to warrant essential human rights (health is a human right) to everybody in a democratic country, I think those who cannot afford the costs have the right to be cured free, I haven't seen it yet but I've heard last M. Moore film is about that, the NHS in U.S., has anyone seen it? And what do you think about? Our NHS is everything but perfect but still can presently offer the right to be cured in hospital without paying.

[MattBlackLamb]

I haven't seen the latest Michael Moore film, but according to a review I heard on the radio he seemed to think that our Health Service was the best on the planet.

He's wrong.

It isn't.

There are many problems with the system, from unhappy doctors not getting paid enough, to dirty hospitals that spread nasty diseases.

On the subject of the topic.

A free health service is a human right, no one person on this planet is more important than anyone else. If someone is in hospital recovering from cancer & George Bush is in the hospital & trips & twists his ankle & the person with cancer gets kicked out of their bed because it's the president, that is the most horribly wrong thing that can happen ever.

[Andrew D]

If someone is in hospital recovering from cancer & George Bush is in the hospital & trips & twists his ankle & the person with cancer gets kicked out of their bed because it's the president, that is the most horribly wrong thing that can happen ever.

One thing, everyone knows Bush only goes to a place if there's been a huge disaster there, like Iraq. Oh, and his holiday resort in Texas. Apart from that, he never goes anywhere.

[Bobofthedead]

The unfortunate thing is, the NHS was probably the best thing to happen to Britain. In its heyday, it was actually a truly good service, but after 10 years of Labour mis-management, targets set in the wrong places (getting patients out quickly, as opposed to getting them out well) and "modernisation" such as axing matrons and ward cleaning staff etc. and subcontracting them. But now it's dire.

If the US were to implement a National Health Service type system, and learn from Britain's mistakes (how depressing does that sound? ) then it may well be excellent. I personally think that all the Republicans who say it would mean the end of America's capitalist system, we/they shall all descend into communism, which shall be exactly like our/their pro-capitalistic propaganda are all off their rockers. It's only the rich Republican senators who can afford the best medical treatment a system of private healthcare has to offer. I mean, what happens if the chief bread-winner in a financially unstable family contracts a disease/condition that stops him or her from working? The family get chucked out onto the streets, and the ill person is left to die, that's what I, as an English cynic see. Healthcare to the best of what is possible is not just the right of the rich, but the right of all 6 billion people on Earth.

Ironically, the English NHS doesn't even get that. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence refuses to allow England drugs which, not only work, but work effectively with few side effects, but the Scottish NHS gets them. Some may call it annoying, but I call it a travesty. If someone who lives north of an imaginary line separating two countries that are treated as one country in most cases has access to a drug that would save their life then why should it be different for a person living south of that imaginary line?

[david.atwell]

All an NHS will do is increase cost and decrease effectiveness. Waste of money, and a health risk.

[topezia]

If someone is in hospital recovering from cancer & George Bush is in the hospital & trips & twists his ankle & the person with cancer gets kicked out of their bed because it's the president, that is the most horribly wrong thing that can happen ever.

One thing, everyone knows Bush only goes to a place if there's been a huge disaster there, like Iraq. Oh, and his holiday resort in Texas. Apart from that, he never goes anywhere.

I do not agree with that, when there is a big disaster (except for Iraq, but he is the major responsible for that disaster, and I suppose he likes to go there cause he can wear a pilot jacket pretending to be a top gun) Bush first reaction is to avoid the place of the disaster (see Katrina and 9/11)

I haven't seen the latest Michael Moore film, but according to a review I heard on the radio he seemed to think that our Health Service was the best on the planet.

He's wrong.

It isn't.

There are many problems with the system, from unhappy doctors not getting paid enough, to dirty hospitals that spread nasty diseases.

On the subject of the topic.

A free health service is a human right, no one person on this planet is more important than anyone else. If someone is in hospital recovering from cancer & George Bush is in the hospital & trips & twists his ankle & the person with cancer gets kicked out of their bed because it's the president, that is the most horribly wrong thing that can happen ever.

I am sorry to hear this yours was indeed the best european NHS and I cannot believe it is decayed like you say.

All an NHS will do is increase cost and decrease effectiveness. Waste of money, and a health risk.

So what do you suggest for the poors who cannot afford the expenses of health care?

[david.atwell]

So what do you suggest for the poors who cannot afford the expenses of health care?

Charities, churches, individuals should step up. There's enough wealth in the world to help everyone who needs it. I plan to give as much as I can, as often as I can -- I just don't think the government should force me to give it, or decide who I give it to.

[MattBlackLamb]

Mr big who owns Mega Corporation Inc. isn't exactly likely to hand over 1 or 2 hundred dollars just so that Mr poor man can have his liver transplant is he?

Either you give the money to the government in the form of taxes to give to hospitals, or people that can't afford health treatment die.

I may have a slightly jaded view of people that run massive corporations but I very much doubt that the CEO of MacDonalds is going to pay for someone's hip replacement.

Personally I feel that there should be no extra cost to the taxpayer, it is their right to have free healthcare. I don't know if it's the same in America, but over here there is far too much money spent on developing nuclear weapons with the power to wipe out the entire planet. If this money were put into the health service it would seem to make more sense than developing weapons that we'll never use (or if we do use them, the planet as we know it won't survive).

[david.atwell]

Personally I feel that there should be no extra cost to the taxpayer, it is their right to have free healthcare.

But where does that money come from? Sure, sounds like a good idea on paper. But it's been tried. Socialism doesn't work. Sorry. :-)

[MattBlackLamb]

The money comes from other things that the government funds, as I mentioned slightly later in my post. I don't know if there's anything unnecessary that the US government channels far too much money into, (the likelihood is yes). If nuclear weapons were ignored, there would be so much extra money around that it could be channeled into things like the health service & police.

[david.atwell]

Sure. The U.S. government wastes a ton of money. Massive amounts. More than yours, I'd wager. But if we turn away from weapons research, what is our recourse when a hostile nation attacks? Power such as the United States holds attracts attackers often, as history bears out. The only way to make it work would be if every nation were to cooperate. If war were abolished.

Yeah, right. :-)

[Simon Brown]

Personally I feel that there should be no extra cost to the taxpayer, it is their right to have free healthcare.

But where does that money come from? Sure, sounds like a good idea on paper. But it's been tried. Socialism doesn't work. Sorry. :-)

Neither does conservatism. Nothing works.

[david.atwell]

True enough. But what works best? Rather, what doesn't work least?

[MattBlackLamb]

Sure. The U.S. government wastes a ton of money. Massive amounts. More than yours, I'd wager. But if we turn away from weapons research, what is our recourse when a hostile nation attacks? Power such as the United States holds attracts attackers often, as history bears out. The only way to make it work would be if every nation were to cooperate. If war were abolished.

Yeah, right. :-)

So, the way to win a war is to obliterate the planet with a nuclear missile?

[Simon Brown]

True enough. But what works best? Rather, what doesn't work least?

What if we had a private government health system that rich people may go to if they choose - and the profit goes to help poor people get essential treatment for free?

Edit: That would be great if we invented tonnes of government businesses to compete with the private sector - it might drive up their quality while at the same time raising money for things like armed forces, the poor, public sector workers, ect.

Sadly it may lead to corruption, though.

[Bobofthedead]

@ David (Socialism): No. Socialism can work, and for the most part, if maintained well, does. You are looking at a Socialist system which needs managing and thinking that because it needs management, and is not self-perpetuating, it will not work due to its need to be nurse-maided, and that it can't work due to the fact that everyone can pay into it, and therefore has a stake in it. Think of it as advanced insurance: you pay into it, and if you do fall ill, you can claim on it. The only difference is that you help others by paying into it.

@ Matt: You know America has to have her weapons to "protect" her from "threats". Honestly. The only countries who pose a significant threat to the US are not sufficiently militarily advanced enough to be able to actually do her any damage. They just want to look good, and be in the position to be the aggressors when the time comes.

@ David (Defence): What does America have to defend herself from? All of the wars America has been in since WW2, to my knowledge, have all been instigated by America reacting to "the Communist Threat" (Vietnam, Korea), or over oil (both Gulf Wars, Iraq). The only seriously damaging attacks America has had the misfortune to have been in do not require such a large nuclear presence.

@ Sabrown: What is the point in that? Then the rich, who can and do pay for healthcare privately get free or very cheap healthcare in a government-sanctioned two-tiered, elitist system which only stops the masses from getting more effective treatment. Anyway, do you honestly think that Labour could hack it in the world of big business. To quote one of the comment pages from The Times: "If Labour were a privately owned business, it would have been shut down long ago".

[topezia]

Q

So what do you suggest for the poors who cannot afford the expenses of health care?

Charities, churches, individuals should step up. There's enough wealth in the world to help everyone who needs it. I plan to give as much as I can, as often as I can -- I just don't think the government should force me to give it, or decide who I give it to.

That is my personal belief but if I had to live on others' charity I would rather prefer to die! charity can work on huge humanitarian crisis (tsunami or sort of catastrophies like that) but you cannot live on charity it is against the dignity of any human being. And if there is, and I believe there is ,enough wealth in the world to help everyone who needs why there are still so many humanitarian catastrophies where people starve to death (Africa and Darfur sceneries) and yes I do not see either Carlyle C.E.O. investing their money in charity (Carlyle ...is there a bell ringing into your ears?)

Almost all of us live in a more or less democratic country (and mine is a less ... to quote a great latin, Tacitus , Italy is a corruptissima republica plurimae leges) so we all pay tax (except for those who dodge, like many very rich people here in my poor country) taxes we pay are supposed to go for state balance, thus including a N.H.S. ,pensions etc. that is the so-called wellfare state, if not what are we paying taxes for?

[david.atwell]

@ David (Socialism): No. Socialism can work.... (etc.)

But why would you work hard? Why would you try to excel if you only ever got the same as anyone else? Socialism doesn't work because it doesn't encourage people to try hard.

@ David (Defence): What does America have to defend herself from? All of the wars America has been in since WW2... (etc.)

"Since WW2?" That wasn't even a century ago! How can you hold this time up as a time of peace when it's only been about sixty years?

or over oil (both Gulf Wars, Iraq)

I'm going to go insane next time I hear this media lie repeated again. I'm sorry, Bob, but you've been lied to. That flat-out can not be the reason for war. Oil has stayed in the hands of the nations in question during both conflicts you mention, and the median price of oil to the United States per barrel has either stayed the same or actually increased in both of the conflicts so far. So, I'm sorry, but that doesn't work.

Anyway, I don't mean to attack you personally. But you put it so conveniently all in one package.... :-)

[Bobofthedead]

60 years is more than enough time to create a lasting peace, but your administration refuses to view not being the antagonist as an option, quite possibly because war is easier to achieve than peace. And if I remember my history lessons correctly, your President Woodrow Wilson was advocating peace with Germany, whom they had just pwned, in waaay under 60 years. If Wilson could try, why can't the obviously far superior Bush? Because you have to work towards it, whereas war can be started in an instant.

I did not say that the wars America has been in have been about the price of oil in the present: I believe they were about securing the price of oil in the future. Anti-American leaders in all states with oil, which America is burning at an unprecedented rate, are always bad for American business, so if your military can get rid of the anti-American leader, your military feels that they must on some ridiculous pretext, just to ensure a supply of oil for the future.

Addressing your point about Socialism: if you're not willing to give to help both yourself and others survive, then why do anything altruistic? It all involves donation of something, be it time or money, to help others.

[MattBlackLamb]

stuff about socialism

If I ruled the world, (yeah, it's not the best way of starting a post but it's the easiest way to explain my stand on this), money would be distributed equally between everyone. Simple as. Farmers in Africa & Bill Gates would have the same amount of income. People may not like that way of living but it seems like the only fair way to do things. I could happily live with less luxury in my life if I knew that Billions of people all over the world had a much better life.

[Simon Brown]

stuff about socialism

If I ruled the world, (yeah, it's not the best way of starting a post but it's the easiest way to explain my stand on this), money would be distributed equally between everyone. Simple as. Farmers in Africa & Bill Gates would have the same amount of income. People may not like that way of living but it seems like the only fair way to do things. I could happily live with less luxury in my life if I knew that Billions of people all over the world had a much better life.

With communism, you are only permitted to be the same as everyone else - do you want to be the same as someone else.

In communism - someone supports capitalism and thus everyone supports capitalism.

[MattBlackLamb]

It's not perfect, I'll grant you that, but it's better than the starving people all over the world is it not?

[Simon Brown]

It's not perfect, I'll grant you that, but it's better than the starving people all over the world is it not?

I would rather a few die than everyone live in such a boring world.