+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Socialised medicine is superior

  1. Link to Post #1
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,400
    Thanks
    14,917
    Thanked 6,358 times in 1,255 posts

    Default Socialised medicine is superior

    Dear All,
    the following Article was written by a family member.We discovered that Bernie Sander's brother, Larry, is a Health Campaigner in Oxford , UK.

    I believe that that the UK system is the best model for policy makers.
    I agree with Noam Chomsky that the UK system is being de-funded in a deliberate de-stabilisation policy, in order to discredit this model in the eyes of the public

    I believe that the Canadian system is Bernie's inspiration, and this system is partially inspired by the British system.

    There are numerous examples of US doctors who have worked within the UK system and have found it to be an inspiration.

    One of the key themes used by opposers of socialised medicine is the idea that it is a rationing system and there are long waits etc.

    But in reality all systems ration limited resources in different ways. Can an American comfortably live within a system, knowing that many are denied Health Care, often for reasons beyond their control?

    Quote TEN DANGEROUS ILLUSIONS PEOPLE HOLD ABOUT THE NHS

    Well, here we are in 2016, and in America Mr Sanders has been making the case for a reformed Health System. He has stated that at 17% of GNP, the USA health system is by far the most expensive of any major nation and great savings, perhaps as much as 7% of GNP are available by creating a single payer National Health system there. Of course he is right, and the business case is inescapable. The mind boggles that so many pro business types seem unable to grasp this.

    He tells us that the reason Healthcare in USA is so expensive is that it is funded via an extremely complex privately run network of insurance Companies. In addition, he mentions that in the USA it is common for ‘consumers’ to have to pay TEN TIMES THE PRICE for some drugs as they pay in Canada. Looking at the experience for the public in the USA it is pretty horrific.
    According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2012 there were 48.0 million people in the US (15.4% of the population) who were without health insurance previous to the introduction of Obamacare, in 2014 still 33 million (approximately 10%) of the US population did not have health insurance . This means that the only care available to them then was when a condition reached an emergency status. They could then go to any emergency room and get emergency care. The cost of this is born by other insured consumers. Obviously this represents a very poor model for those individuals, and ongoing cancer care for example would be minimal or nonexistent.
    For the lucky ones who can afford insurance there is a ‘Rolls Royce’ system available, but there are huge uninsured excesses on policies in order to reduce premiums, therefore for many people, health bills can often be a cause of bankruptcy. Health bills are the single largest cause of bankruptcy in the USA.

    One might expect that since US citizens pay so much their system really is the very best but this is not so. The basic parameters of life expectancy, Cancer survival and child mortality are no better and in the case of Child Mortality, worse than in many advanced nations (with higher child mortality than Belarus!)
    We also hear horrendous anecdotes, many documented, of Doctors who are profit driven, deliberately diagnosing a cancer that does not exist, over prescribing expensive drugs or recommending expensive unnecessary tests and procedures. This of course is the reason profit-driven medical care can seriously disadvantage or even cause damage to patients.

    So what has gone wrong?

    1. Economies of scale. There are none. The USA lavishes about 6% of GNP of various ‘entitlement’ public health programmes. These are not integrated into the main health system, and achieve very poor value for money because they are largely purchasing services from private medical companies.

    2. Over priced Drugs and procedures. Please note that the Food & Drug administration is an industry-funded regulatory body, so in effect the system is to a large degree self regulating. It is therefore no surprise that there is no public oversight of drugs purchasing policy, for example evaluating whether a generic drug might do an adequate job, or an expensive new drug providing so little advantage that it is not cost effective to offer.

    3. Huge staff costs. In a fragmented privately run medical system training and wage costs are extremely high. This is the largest overhead for any medical system.

    4. Private insurance. Obviously if a Nation has a functioning Tax system, it already has an infrastructure for collecting and distributing funds for Health Care. In the case of the USA, they have built a completely separate system to collect and pay for services. This is a huge admin cost for them, and very complex due to the different policies and levels of cover.

    Mr Sanders makes a good case for a more progressive approach, and his numbers represent a very persuasive case to people who do a bit of research.
    Moving on to the UK, the mind boggles! The Government here, clothing itself in the increasingly thread-bare mantle of economic competence, is trying to destroy the very system that Mr Sanders is advocating. One wonders, given the above arguments, how they could possibly think that by breaking up our public system, consumers will get a better deal, and efficiencies will be achieved.

    Well, folks- sorry, the answer is that they do not! Many intelligent and well informed individuals, notably health professionals, academics and economists, recognise that the current UK government is doing the British people an immense disservice through acting out its evil ideological destruction of the NHS, prior to introducing an insurance-based system similar to the US. They are however, not motivated by the general public good, but by a need to favour their own special ideological and commercial interests.

    Beyond the fact that a good number of them have financial interests in the ever growing number of Private Healthcare providers that are springing up in the UK, there is an underhand agenda, which is driven by corporate lobbies. These seek to extract more profits from the business of health. This will come about through providing the service itself, but also by selling more and pricier drugs, with less public oversight. It is money and cronyism that is driving this process. It is urgent that the mass of the British people grasp that their interests are NOT being served by these changes.

    Please remember that the UK is a major location for Big Pharma research and head office locations. In 2008, the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom directly employed around 72,000 people , largely in high skill well paid jobs. Large amounts are invested in research in this country. Suffice it to say that these companies wield considerable power, in particular with NHS procurement when they are inclined act in their own best interests and not those of our health service!

    All health systems involve rationing limited resources to a greater or lesser extent. It is essential that the cheapest/most cost effective solutions are found to maintain fiscal equilibrium. Ideally, public health systems should prioritise prevention before cure, with sick patients offered optimum treatment within financial constraints. The absence of a profit making ethos in healthcare helps prevent unnecessary tests and treatments being prescribed for patients, thus keeping costs to a level within the constraints of available funding.

    TEN MYTHS ABOUT THE BRITISH NHS

    1. The British NHS is inefficient: UNTRUE

    According to research by the Commonwealth Fund , as a percentage of GDP the NHS is one of the lowest spenders on healthcare in the developed countries. Healthcare spending per capita is also the lowest and overall the NHS is rated one of the best health services in the world Also, management costs are far lower than those of the US, France, Germany and the Netherlands However, we know that the UK system although efficient, includes a cost of between £5 and £10 Billion to run the internal market, which is a layer of administration set up specifically to enable the contracting out of services. There are many people within the system who believe that this cost burden is a waste of resources that would be better utilised providing front line Health Care.

    2. The British NHS provides a poor quality service UNTRUE.

    According to The King’s Fund, while quality improvements are needed , much progress is being made through quality improvement initiatives already in place, and many areas of clinical care provided by NHS Trusts are world class.

    3. The British Public has lost faith in its NHS : UNTRUE.

    Public attitudes toward the NHS are overwhelmingly positive and public satisfaction high.
    One recent poll shows that 57% of the public support the junior doctor’s strike, by proxy supporting the NHS . Existing issues can largely be attributed to the fact that the UK spends £40billion (3% of GNP ) LESS than the French per year, and the system is being starved of investment.

    4. Privatisation of Services will improve quality: UNTRUE.

    The Financial Times reported that more than £5.8 billion of NHS work was offered to the private sector in July 2015, The Hinchingbrooke debacle involving Circle Healthcare is a prime example of a contract that failed to deliver so spectacularly that service provision had to be passed back to the NHS. Serco withdrew from running GP services in Cornwall due to data mismanagement and from community care services in Suffolk after being accused of poor performance. Problems also reported by the FT include failures by Clinical Commissioning groups to monitor private contracts, and inadequate development of tenders. The BBC recently reported that the privatisation of dermatology services in Nottingham has been an unmitigated disaster and more instances can be found demonstrating the issues caused by some aspects of privatisation of the NHS.

    5. Privatisation of services will improve the management of staff: UNTRUE.

    There have been many reports concerning incoming private operators who cut staff wages, and quality of care delivery has suffered. With private contractors driven by profit-making for their shareholders, it is in their own best interests to deliver their services as cheaply as possible under the terms of the contract. This can mean downgrading staff, reducing their numbers and making any other savings that can squeeze down the costs of delivering care. The patient thus becomes secondary to this overriding imperative. By contrast, as everyone who works within the NHS or has used it knows, the patient in need of healthcare is the primary reason for the procedures and standards in place to ensure the patient reaps the health benefits he/she needs. Staff generally ‘go the extra mile’ and work far beyond their expected shift hours when the need arises. This truly humane, ethical and socially responsible system is the envy of the world. One of the effects of the de-skilling of NHS services that are tendered out is a higher level of problems and complications caused. This cost, of course, is then picked up by the NHS.

    6. Private contractors only win a tender if they provide a superior tender to the NHS: UNTRUE.

    A Freedom of Information request made by the British Medical Journal revealed that of 3,494 contracts awarded by 182 Clinical Commissioning Groups in England between April 2013 and August 2014, 33% went to the private sector.
    Recently, the public has been informed that some commissioners in England have awarded more costly contracts to private providers, rejecting lower bids from NHS providers. One example of this occurred in Stoke where a contract to provide imaging services was handed to a private firm even though the NHS offered to do the work for seven million pounds less.
    The public has also been made aware of the vested interests some MPs and members of the House of Lords hold in private healthcare companies, of which some companies have already been awarded NHS contracts.


    7. The private sector is more innovative in Healthcare: UNTRUE.


    Unfortunately innovation in the private sector is fundamentally profit driven and thus more likely to skew service provision towards their own best financial interests. This imperative must essentially trump the best interests of service users needing healthcare. In the UK, for example, A&E and Intensive care are not generally provided in the private sector, so the NHS has to take over patient care in the event of critical needs. In contrast to private healthcare the NHS, public sector healthcare acts in the best interests of patients, not profit for shareholders despite being required to make annual savings in order to maximise efficient care delivery which puts enormous strains on the system. To its further credit, the NHS has achieved significant innovations over time in research and development, far too numerous to detail here. Examples include pioneering work in the treatment of brain tumours, children’s and adult leukaemia, Alzheimer’s disease, pancreatic cancer and diabetes to name but a very few.


    8. The Private Sector will bring fresh investment into the NHS: UNTRUE.

    It has now been established that some of the Private Finance Initiative funding provided to the NHS has been at interests higher than market rates. As we all know, the cheapest way to fund investment is by Government borrowing.
    There is also the issue of ‘peoples QE’ that Mr Jeremy Corbyn is proposing. Investment in the NHS is a prime candidate. The government can just create the money, as they did to the tune of £1.162 billion to bail out the banks in the 2008 financial crisis.
    Between March and November 2009, the Monetary Policy Committee decided to purchase £200 billion of financial assets (i.e. Qantitative Easing), mostly UK Government debt or 'gilts'. Since then the Monetary Policy Committee has decided on further purchases: £75 billion in October 2011; £50bn in February 2012 and £50bn in July 2012. That brought total assets purchased to £375 bn.

    So the base line is that the UK Government is best placed to finance NHS investment. Private providers will only be in a position to invest when there is a profit stream available to make this investment viable in their own interests.

    9. If the overall resourcing provided to the Health System is the same or better, it does not matter how much comes from the tax payer or via insurance policies: UNTRUE.

    Now this one is where the middle class will be betrayed by their own Party, the Tories! Incredible but true. What the Tories have been planning for the past 20 years is to run down the NHS within the public sector, and increase the amount of private provision. Government resources will, to the extent available, be directed towards subsidising the poorest who cannot afford insurance. As services for the middle class deteriorate, more and more of them will be nudged towards taking out private insurance policies. The government will then continue their happy cycle of running down services and cutting tax or paying down the National Debt. Sounds great. The problem lies in the current funding model which is WHOLLY based on tax receipts. The British tax system is highly redistributive and relies on the rich for a large proportion of its income. The figures show that the very highest earners - amounting to just under 3,000 people with a declared income above £2.7 million - will contribute 4.2 per cent of the total Government revenue from income tax in the current financial year. If the middle classes are left paying tax for a limited NHS AND having to take out their own insurance policies they will, almost inevitably be worse off, as the RICH will be contributing LESS. You read it here first- the Tories plan to shaft the middle class!!

    10. The government promise to provide a free at the point of use system: UNTRUE.

    Sorry, I just do not believe them. They are projecting to REDUCE NHS spending by £22 billion through so called efficiency savings by 2020 . They have lied about so much, how can they be trusted not to add additional up-front costs to individual NHS users?

    In conclusion I would say that a centralised publicly owned and publicly transparent Health System such as the NHS is demonstrably the most efficient way to deliver the best possible health outcomes. The facts are clear on this point. If the research is so clear, why are our Government jeopardising the most precious asset in the public sector? I leave it to you to research further and come to your own conclusions.


    Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation, October 2015

    http://www.abpi.org.uk/our-work/libr...know_Jan11.pdf

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...al-perspective

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me...artpack_v2.pdf

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me...irror_2014.pdf

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me...irror_2014.pdf

    http://nhap.org/wp-content/uploads/2...festo-2015.pdf


    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/fi...ruary-2016.pdf

    http://www.natcen.ac.uk/news-media/p...provides-care/

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/92059d56-6...#axzz47VFtr0nr

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-33007103

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30397329

    http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Stoke...ail/story.html

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monet...e/qe_faqs.aspx

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...9-million.html

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...iciency-target
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    avid (4th May 2016), Deega (4th May 2016), diazbeat (4th May 2016), Ellisa (5th May 2016), Ewan (4th May 2016), Fellow Aspirant (7th May 2016), GaelVictor (4th May 2016), mpennery (4th May 2016), Nasu (4th May 2016), ZooLife (4th May 2016)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    2,733
    Thanked 2,430 times in 818 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    Yeah. OK. That's why there is a doctor shortage in the uk.

  4. Link to Post #3
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,400
    Thanks
    14,917
    Thanked 6,358 times in 1,255 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    Quote Posted by risveglio (here)
    Yeah. OK. That's why there is a doctor shortage in the uk.
    THE FIGURES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES




    Hospital Beds per 1,000 people UK:4.2 US: 3.3
    Life Expectancy UK: 78 US: 76
    Physicians per 1,000 people UK:2.2 US:2.3
    Infant mortality per 1,000 live births UK:4.62 US:6.06
    Health Expenditure per capita UK: $3,608 US:$8,608

    Source: Nationmaster
    Really at this low resource level it's a miracle that the UK system retains any doctors. However the current Government are working on this!
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    Ewan (4th May 2016), GaelVictor (4th May 2016), Nasu (4th May 2016), ZooLife (4th May 2016)

  6. Link to Post #4
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    2,733
    Thanked 2,430 times in 818 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    Quote Posted by Baby Steps (here)
    Quote Posted by risveglio (here)
    Yeah. OK. That's why there is a doctor shortage in the uk.
    THE FIGURES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES




    Hospital Beds per 1,000 people UK:4.2 US: 3.3
    Life Expectancy UK: 78 US: 76
    Physicians per 1,000 people UK:2.2 US:2.3
    Infant mortality per 1,000 live births UK:4.62 US:6.06
    Health Expenditure per capita UK: $3,608 US:$8,608

    Source: Nationmaster
    Really at this low resource level it's a miracle that the UK system retains any doctors. However the current Government are working on this!
    Government does not do things to help people. They only do things to give themselves more power.

  7. Link to Post #5
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,400
    Thanks
    14,917
    Thanked 6,358 times in 1,255 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    I generally agree with that, but in a complex health system run by professionals I see two basic types
    1. Privately owned ones with profit incentives influencing decisions on patient care
    2. Publicly owned systems with patient care as the primary driver of decision making.

    The UK system does not fit either, but is closer to the ideal of efficient need driven care than the USA system. When we talk about CHEAP care we mean efficient care which allows for MORE to be done with LESS.

    All systems whoever owns them are vulnerable to corruption and need powerful transparency mechanisms and public oversight.

    All systems are subverted by the malign influence of big pharma
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    Ewan (4th May 2016), GaelVictor (4th May 2016), Nasu (4th May 2016), ZooLife (4th May 2016)

  9. Link to Post #6
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    2,733
    Thanked 2,430 times in 818 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    But the problem with the US system is the fact that the government is so deeply involved. The solution is a free market in health care not more government cronyism.

  10. Link to Post #7
    United States Avalon Member mpennery's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd February 2014
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Age
    49
    Posts
    926
    Thanks
    6,210
    Thanked 8,565 times in 899 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    Quote Posted by risveglio (here)
    But the problem with the US system is the fact that the government is so deeply involved. The solution is a free market in health care not more government cronyism.
    Bingo. It's not so much what system is in place but who controls it. Currently there is no such thing as a health care system in my opinion. It's a death care/illness management system and I can't help but wonder if this is any different in the UK, Canada, the US or any other industrial nation, regardless of whether it's called free market or socialized medicine. The only "medicine" I really trust is emergency medicine, which the US does pretty well. As for prevention, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, suppressed cures, etc, the entire thing needs to be scrapped and started over. The medical systems, with errors, overdoses, "normal" side effects and misdiagnoses, are among the biggest killers on the planet.

    Matt
    "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness."
    - Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham

  11. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to mpennery For This Post:

    Ayt (9th August 2019), Baby Steps (4th May 2016), Blacklight43 (4th May 2016), chancy (4th May 2016), drneglector (5th May 2016), Ewan (4th May 2016), JRS (9th August 2019), NancyV (21st August 2016), Rex (4th May 2016), risveglio (4th May 2016), TargeT (30th November 2016), uzn (4th May 2016), ZooLife (4th May 2016)

  12. Link to Post #8
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,400
    Thanks
    14,917
    Thanked 6,358 times in 1,255 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    OK , if you have a free market, how do you prevent Doctors from seeing patients as a profit centre- and over prescribing drugs, using expensive procedures that are not needed?

    US Hospitals derive a large proportion of their profits from by-pass surgery as one example. What incentive do those Doctors have to investigate strategies to repair the cardio vascular system without expensive interventions with poor outcomes? They really have an incentive to bodge the surgery- it's more profit for them.

    The USA had a free market in the 19th Century, and without the malign influence of pharma, herbal remedies thrived. The Library of Congress is the largest repository of Herbal Knowledge on the planet.

    But the unfettered power of pharma, operating WITHIN A FREE MARKET FRAMEWORK killed off the competition.They subverted or exploited the scientific method to 'prove' that their competition was inferior or quackery.

    I do not disagree with your point-these corrupting forces exploited the regulatory mechanisms put in place by government, to shut down their competitors.

    I just feel that a non profit motivated system has a greater chance of finding the best solution, as a cheap solution will be considered, whereas when these big companies get their hooks in, the cheap methods are discredited.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  13. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    annacherie (6th May 2016), Carmody (4th May 2016), Ellisa (5th May 2016), Ewan (4th May 2016), Fellow Aspirant (7th May 2016), Nasu (4th May 2016), ZooLife (4th May 2016)

  14. Link to Post #9
    Avalon Member Hym's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th June 2011
    Location
    Eastern Pacific
    Posts
    550
    Thanks
    7,946
    Thanked 3,318 times in 526 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    I understand and see the validity of the question about the difference in both systemic approaches, but my experience of the deeper sickness within these systems reminds me that there is a need to dig deeper into why health care is such an issue either way.

    Why do we call free market free when most of those corporations don't care about anything more than their profit? Free to gouge the consumer, free to collude with other big providers in fixing prices and exponentially increasing profits year after year? What's healthy about that? What is caring in that mind set? On the other side of the issue, which I see as very much the same, why are government workers allowed to work for those they regulate at anytime in the 10 years after they move from a regulatory job and into the free market of the corporate empire? Governmental statistics that are used to allow corporations the increases in care are based upon the corporate, grant and gratuity driven financiers of almost every single professional research facility in the world. How is that not collusion and suppression of true research and scientific independence?

    The vast majority of health care, both public and private, is corrupt. Both public and private systems increase health costs way beyond actual expenses incurred in inflation, real production costs of equipment, transportation expenses, etc. Look at the increase in hospital charge averages over decades and you'll find the gross exaggeration way beyond the increase in expenses. Governments that have health care systems collude with the lawmakers who allow exaggerated profits suggested by providers, demanded actually, by the corporations that run the entirety of the health care systems. This includes the outrageous profits of big pharma, chemotherapy treatments and inpatient care.

    The proof exists in the lack of transparency and the dilution of the hippocratic oath since the mid 1800's, hospitals seen as products of cloistered suppression of true healing modems, teaching health care professionals barbaric and primitive, unscientific treatment systems when we know of effective, humane and subtle energetic healing methods that have been here for years. Why is it that with but a little research I can carry on a conversation with almost any health care professional and quickly determine where they are ignorant, evasive, or actually engaged in a conversation about the suppression of a treatment or the criminality of a well known drug in common use? Chemo, Guardasil, Tamaflu, Aspartame anyone?

    As an coroner extolled to me, something he told his wife, showing the great disconnection from health he saw hospitals create in all of the bodies he examined "If I am in a hospital and you don't come to get me, at the maximum of 4 or 5 days and if I can't walk out, I'll crawl out." Take this to heart, as many of us have learned the hard way not to leave a loved one in either system. Emergency care and some diagnostics, yes. When you plan to allow a hospital to take care of you, in most cases, it shows you don't take care of yourself.
    Last edited by Hym; 4th May 2016 at 16:38.

  15. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hym For This Post:

    Ayt (9th August 2019), Baby Steps (4th May 2016), Chris Gilbert (4th May 2016), Ewan (4th May 2016), NancyV (21st August 2016), ZooLife (4th May 2016)

  16. Link to Post #10
    United States Avalon Member conk's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Language
    Southern English
    Posts
    3,917
    Thanks
    10,963
    Thanked 10,816 times in 2,970 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    We, the western world, should embrace a concept from China. In some parts of China a physician is paid a monthly stipend by each of his healthy patients. When they become sick his pay is halted until the patient is well again. Marvelous idea!

    No, the model for healthcare being the USA version is a bad idea. The Medical Mafia kill more people than most any other cause. They need for you be constantly ill or their revenue stops. Not one tiny bit of effort goes toward actually healing anyone. "We must manage this disease", when in fact there are no diseases. Just labels for insurance billing purposes.
    The quantum field responds not to what we want; but to who we are being. Dr. Joe Dispenza

  17. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to conk For This Post:

    Baby Steps (4th May 2016), Carmody (4th May 2016), drneglector (5th May 2016), Ewan (4th May 2016), mpennery (5th May 2016), NancyV (21st August 2016), risveglio (4th May 2016), ZooLife (4th May 2016)

  18. Link to Post #11
    Avalon Member Carmody's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th August 2010
    Location
    Winning The Galactic Lottery
    Posts
    11,379
    Thanks
    17,589
    Thanked 82,042 times in 10,210 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    big pharma In the USA in particular and in the world as an unfolding....is a multi trillion dollar embedded parasite with intelligence, fangs, brutality, and reach.

    Burning it out of the body public, economy, and politic will take maximum sustained directed intelligent action. Action without quarter.
    Interdimensional Civil Servant

  19. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Carmody For This Post:

    annacherie (6th May 2016), Baby Steps (4th May 2016), Blacklight43 (4th May 2016), conk (4th May 2016), drneglector (5th May 2016), Eram (4th May 2016), Ewan (4th May 2016), Fellow Aspirant (7th May 2016), genevieve (4th May 2016), JRS (5th May 2016), Mike (4th May 2016), mpennery (5th May 2016), uzn (4th May 2016)

  20. Link to Post #12
    United States Avalon Member Chris Gilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    31st July 2012
    Age
    38
    Posts
    190
    Thanks
    1,353
    Thanked 765 times in 178 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    It's good on one hand for basic services to be covered in case people are in something like an auto accident, one shouldn't have to go into bankruptcy because they were going about their day and got hit by a drunk driver.

    On the other hand, yes, the medical cartel in its current form is a giant parasite. I suspect that the higher life expectancy in other industrialized countries that are typically chalked up to socialized medicine are actually due to other factors like better nutrition and work/life balance. Overall, it's going to collapse in the long run. The example of doctors of China who get a stipend if they keep their clients healthy is a good model to follow (I believe something similar was done with Classical Chinese medicine practitioners in the past, I will have to check my references though).
    Last edited by Chris Gilbert; 4th May 2016 at 18:08.

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chris Gilbert For This Post:

    Baby Steps (4th May 2016), Ewan (4th May 2016), ZooLife (4th May 2016)

  22. Link to Post #13
    Avalon Member happyexpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st December 2010
    Location
    Mostly Disinterested Enlightenment
    Age
    44
    Posts
    223
    Thanks
    418
    Thanked 617 times in 169 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    The superior medicine is that which is provided by YOURSELF. Eat well, learn about homeopathy, herbs, make your own probiotics, etc., and who cares what happens with the ridiculous systems in whatever country ?

    We have mostly only used homeopathy for years, and we don't even buy the remedies. Just write it on oneself with a pen and it works perfectly. Even used for a broken bone. Things heal incredibly quickly this way. Anybody who has seen Dr. Emoto's work with writing words on water glasses can easily see why it works perfectly well.

    Most medical doctors are worthless anyhow unless it is a critical emergency situation and even then it is a roll of the dice.

  23. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to happyexpat For This Post:

    annacherie (6th May 2016), Baby Steps (4th May 2016), conk (4th May 2016), Ewan (4th May 2016), mpennery (5th May 2016), NancyV (21st August 2016), ZooLife (4th May 2016)

  24. Link to Post #14
    United States Avalon Member conk's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Language
    Southern English
    Posts
    3,917
    Thanks
    10,963
    Thanked 10,816 times in 2,970 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    Quote Posted by happyexpat (here)
    The superior medicine is that which is provided by YOURSELF. Eat well, learn about homeopathy, herbs, make your own probiotics, etc., and who cares what happens with the ridiculous systems in whatever country ?

    We have mostly only used homeopathy for years, and we don't even buy the remedies. Just write it on oneself with a pen and it works perfectly. Even used for a broken bone. Things heal incredibly quickly this way. Anybody who has seen Dr. Emoto's work with writing words on water glasses can easily see why it works perfectly well.

    Most medical doctors are worthless anyhow unless it is a critical emergency situation and even then it is a roll of the dice.
    So true. It's the energy signature. Critics cry about there being nothing left of the original compound in a homeopathic solution. No, there is not, but that is not what does the healing. The healing is derived from the energy pattern left in the water. A frequency that resonates with that which is needed by the body at that time, for that person. Energy, frequency, resonance, morphic fields, those are the keys to the future of medicine - if the current paradigm can be squashed.
    The quantum field responds not to what we want; but to who we are being. Dr. Joe Dispenza

  25. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to conk For This Post:

    annacherie (6th May 2016), Baby Steps (4th May 2016), Ewan (4th May 2016), happyexpat (5th May 2016), NancyV (21st August 2016), ZooLife (4th May 2016)

  26. Link to Post #15
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    17th December 2010
    Location
    Alberta - Canada
    Posts
    749
    Thanks
    899
    Thanked 4,125 times in 675 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    Hello Everyone:
    I disagree with "Socialised medicine is superior"
    I have lived in this type of medicinei model all my life and can't see why anyone would want it?
    My mother for example was hospitalized 43 years out of 86. Alot of that was due to experimentation on her due to polio. For a socialized system that you apparently think is superior why would socialised medicine not admit a person so sick they are begging to die?
    Why would a hospital with 130 beds only use 12 active beds? (This is the norm in Alberta by the way)
    The wait in emergency is average 4 hours even if you are dying?
    We pay medical insurance in the form of health payments and blue cross for drugs etc.
    People outside socialised medicine think it's all FREE. It's not.
    Try getting a doctor....it can take upto years since doctors won't take you unless you are very sick and can be exploited with prescription drugs. IF you are half way healthy they can't make money on you.
    Alberta runs through about 20 billion a year and still can't afford the equipment in hospitals. All the equipment in hospitals is bought through charities.
    Try to get an MRI. About 6 months to a year for sure.
    Try to get a referral. Months and months to get to the specialist.
    Remember the 20 billion a year for less than 5 million people. It doesn't seem to help make lines shorter or better service.
    I say it's a disaster and if you think it's great then please take ours. We need a new system that works.
    chancy

  27. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to chancy For This Post:

    annacherie (6th May 2016), Baby Steps (4th May 2016), conk (11th May 2016), NancyV (21st August 2016), risveglio (4th May 2016), sandy (5th May 2016), ZooLife (4th May 2016)

  28. Link to Post #16
    United States Avalon Member ZooLife's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th September 2014
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,019
    Thanks
    9,061
    Thanked 13,040 times in 1,963 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    Quote Posted by risveglio (here)
    Government does not do things to help people. They only do things to give themselves more power.
    Isn't THAT the truth.

    Not just government, corporations too! In the US, corporations are buying up all the independent hospitals.

    Corporate hospitals are good for profit but, to put it lightly, not so good for patients.
    I still have eyes to see what the world would have me see but that doesn't mean I believe. - Sara

  29. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ZooLife For This Post:

    Baby Steps (5th May 2016), Ewan (5th May 2016), happyexpat (5th May 2016), mpennery (5th May 2016), TargeT (30th November 2016)

  30. Link to Post #17
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,758
    Thanks
    24,909
    Thanked 32,281 times in 6,947 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    Quote Posted by Baby Steps (here)
    Quote Posted by risveglio (here)
    Yeah. OK. That's why there is a doctor shortage in the uk.
    THE FIGURES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES




    Hospital Beds per 1,000 people UK:4.2 US: 3.3
    Life Expectancy UK: 78 US: 76
    Physicians per 1,000 people UK:2.2 US:2.3
    Infant mortality per 1,000 live births UK:4.62 US:6.06
    Health Expenditure per capita UK: $3,608 US:$8,608

    Source: Nationmaster
    Really at this low resource level it's a miracle that the UK system retains any doctors. However the current Government are working on this!

    We can't just look at one country ... so here's another social healthcare - Canada to compare ...

    Hospital Beds per 1,000 people Canada:3.7 US: 3.3
    Life Expectancy Canada: 79 US: 76
    Physicians per 1,000 people Canada: 2.1 US:2.3
    Infant mortality per 1,000 live births Canada:4.82 US:6.06
    Health Expenditure per capita Canada: $$5,629.73 US:$8,608

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar..._United_States


    And we can't ignore the incredible death rate due to preventable causes from within the medical industry itself in the US is something like over a quarter million deaths per year. Staggering.

    That said, the Canadian system, as much better as it looks in stats and on paper, could be improved vastly. It's definitely not a well oiled machine, but that alone lends credence to the corruption in the industry overall - and how private system bear the vast brunt of that corruption.
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 5th May 2016 at 06:00.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  31. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Baby Steps (5th May 2016), chancy (5th May 2016), Ewan (5th May 2016), Mike (5th May 2016), sandy (5th May 2016)

  32. Link to Post #18
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,758
    Thanks
    24,909
    Thanked 32,281 times in 6,947 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    Quote Posted by chancy (here)
    Hello Everyone:
    I disagree with "Socialised medicine is superior"
    I have lived in this type of medicinei model all my life and can't see why anyone would want it?
    My mother for example was hospitalized 43 years out of 86. Alot of that was due to experimentation on her due to polio. For a socialized system that you apparently think is superior why would socialised medicine not admit a person so sick they are begging to die?
    Why would a hospital with 130 beds only use 12 active beds? (This is the norm in Alberta by the way)
    The wait in emergency is average 4 hours even if you are dying?
    We pay medical insurance in the form of health payments and blue cross for drugs etc.
    People outside socialised medicine think it's all FREE. It's not.
    Try getting a doctor....it can take upto years since doctors won't take you unless you are very sick and can be exploited with prescription drugs. IF you are half way healthy they can't make money on you.
    Alberta runs through about 20 billion a year and still can't afford the equipment in hospitals. All the equipment in hospitals is bought through charities.
    Try to get an MRI. About 6 months to a year for sure.
    Try to get a referral. Months and months to get to the specialist.
    Remember the 20 billion a year for less than 5 million people. It doesn't seem to help make lines shorter or better service.
    I say it's a disaster and if you think it's great then please take ours. We need a new system that works.
    chancy
    Alberta is indeed a special case. I was born and raised in BC and moved to Alberta when I was 20, so I have seen the differences. The healthcare in Canada is not stupendous by any means and Alberta for some strange reason, cannot shake the grip of corruption and poor placement of money, let alone fix their structure issues. Remember when the Alberta government hired that American, who had a massive portfolio of managing private health care companies in the US, to restructure, reduce redundancy and fix the system? The guy was extremely well paid for a year, made no improvements to the system whatsoever, and finally left with a huge multi million dollar bonus on top of his pay, yet he was completely unable to make any improvements in Alberta. When reporters caught up with him, and questioned him he returned with "Can't you see I'm eating my cookies!", and refused to answer questions. Not sure that a capitalist healthcare system could offer us any advantage, and I sure don't want to trade the general stats between private vs public in this arena.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010...ing-my-cookie/
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 5th May 2016 at 02:38.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  33. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Baby Steps (5th May 2016), chancy (5th May 2016), Chris Gilbert (5th May 2016), Ewan (5th May 2016), Mike (5th May 2016), sandy (5th May 2016)

  34. Link to Post #19
    Australia Avalon Member
    Join Date
    7th July 2011
    Posts
    1,113
    Thanks
    4,638
    Thanked 3,057 times in 950 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    Whilst Australia has a 2 tier system EVERYONE is able to access free medical care in hospital if they choose to. My husband broke his leg. His stay in hospital took 2 weeks, he then had 5 visits to out patients and another plaster applied after routine x-rays on one of the visits. He is now completely healed. It cost us nothing--- not a cent--- all pathology, x-rays medicines were free. We could have opted for a private hospital where all of our hospital costs and some of our doctor's fees would be paid for by Govt subsidy and/or private insurance if we wished. This would, in such a hospital, be paid for by insurance or cash-- though there would be some subsidy for Australian citizens. Our medicines and doctors' visits are also subsidised.

    The life expectancy of Australians is now 82. Most countries that have some form of subsidised medicine have better outcomes in life- expectancy than ones that treat mainly only those who can afford it!

    P.S. I recently had a flu injection - It is voluntary and cost me nothing.
    Last edited by Ellisa; 5th May 2016 at 08:21.

  35. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ellisa For This Post:

    Baby Steps (5th May 2016), Chris Gilbert (5th May 2016)

  36. Link to Post #20
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    2,733
    Thanked 2,430 times in 818 posts

    Default Re: Socialised medicine is superior

    Quote Posted by Ellisa (here)
    Whilst Australia has a 2 tier system EVERYONE is able to access free medical care in hospital if they choose to. My husband broke his leg. His stay in hospital took 2 weeks, he then had 5 visits to out patients and another plaster applied after routine x-rays on one of the visits. He is now completely healed. It cost us nothing--- not a cent--- all pathology, x-rays medicines were free. We could have opted for a private hospital where all of our hospital costs and some of our doctor's fees would be paid for by Govt subsidy and/or private insurance if we wished. This would, in such a hospital, be paid for by insurance or cash-- though there would be some subsidy for Australian citizens. Our medicines and doctors' visits are also subsidised.

    The life expectancy of Australians is now 82. Most countries that have some form of subsidised medicine have better outcomes in life- expectancy than ones that treat mainly only those who can afford it!

    P.S. I recently had a flu injection - It is voluntary and cost me nothing.
    Think that life expectancy would stand if mandatory vaccines is implemented?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts