Donald Trump

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

This is a genuine tweet.

https://twitter.com/TrumpStudents/status/1300868640489824256

Is that tweet any different in a political sense to Labour tweeting the Tories will sell off the NHS?

I fully expect wildly partisan tweets from supporters on both sides over the next 2 months.

The difference is if Rick supported this position, he would relay the tweet as fact, when we know this is political positioning.

Ironically there are a lot of people who believe the Labour claim that the Tories will sell off the NHS. Some have even post as much on this forum. I wonder what thst says about their intelligence?

UK would be a better place if they had a more continental, heavily regulated private health system with free insurance for those who can't afford it.

NHS is sh!t and it boils my p!ss no-one in this country will have a reasonable debate on why it is sh!t and how to improve it.

Borderline religious. Drs and nurses are 'saints' and 'heroes'. It's a joke.

Would make a good thread on its own. Just not now because it is sacrilege. They saved us all.

I agree with you by the way, and so will anyone who has lived in, for example, Germany or Canada. (not the US, god no)

My brother lives in Canada. He is less enamoured of the Canadian system as a friend has to part fund their ongoing cancer medication to the tune of several hundred dollars a month. Their insurance only covers half the cost.

I had a cycling accident in Canada, nothing major but could have done with stitches. After waiting in A&E for over 4 hours and no one seeing me I went home, got pain killers, cleaned it out and bandaged myself up.
Similar accident here resulted in a broken collar bone. I got cleaned up, x-rayed and was out in under an hour.
The grass isn't always greener.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

This is a genuine tweet.

https://twitter.com/TrumpStudents/status/1300868640489824256

Is that tweet any different in a political sense to Labour tweeting the Tories will sell off the NHS?

I fully expect wildly partisan tweets from supporters on both sides over the next 2 months.

The difference is if Rick supported this position, he would relay the tweet as fact, when we know this is political positioning.

Ironically there are a lot of people who believe the Labour claim that the Tories will sell off the NHS. Some have even post as much on this forum. I wonder what thst says about their intelligence?

UK would be a better place if they had a more continental, heavily regulated private health system with free insurance for those who can't afford it.

NHS is sh!t and it boils my p!ss no-one in this country will have a reasonable debate on why it is sh!t and how to improve it.

Borderline religious. Drs and nurses are 'saints' and 'heroes'. It's a joke.

Would make a good thread on its own. Just not now because it is sacrilege. They saved us all.

I agree with you by the way, and so will anyone who has lived in, for example, Germany or Canada. (not the US, god no)

My brother lives in Canada. He is less enamoured of the Canadian system as a friend has to part fund their ongoing cancer medication to the tune of several hundred dollars a month. Their insurance only covers half the cost.

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

This is a genuine tweet.

https://twitter.com/TrumpStudents/status/1300868640489824256

Is that tweet any different in a political sense to Labour tweeting the Tories will sell off the NHS?

I fully expect wildly partisan tweets from supporters on both sides over the next 2 months.

The difference is if Rick supported this position, he would relay the tweet as fact, when we know this is political positioning.

Ironically there are a lot of people who believe the Labour claim that the Tories will sell off the NHS. Some have even post as much on this forum. I wonder what thst says about their intelligence?

UK would be a better place if they had a more continental, heavily regulated private health system with free insurance for those who can't afford it.

NHS is sh!t and it boils my p!ss no-one in this country will have a reasonable debate on why it is sh!t and how to improve it.

Borderline religious. Drs and nurses are 'saints' and 'heroes'. It's a joke.

Would make a good thread on its own. Just not now because it is sacrilege. They saved us all.

I agree with you by the way, and so will anyone who has lived in, for example, Germany or Canada. (not the US, god no)

My brother lives in Canada. He is less enamoured of the Canadian system as a friend has to part fund their ongoing cancer medication to the tune of several hundred dollars a month. Their insurance only covers half the cost.

They have to pay for ambulances as well which given the size of Canada can be quite costly. As a result, lots of people use taxis instead.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

This is a genuine tweet.

https://twitter.com/TrumpStudents/status/1300868640489824256

Is that tweet any different in a political sense to Labour tweeting the Tories will sell off the NHS?

I fully expect wildly partisan tweets from supporters on both sides over the next 2 months.

The difference is if Rick supported this position, he would relay the tweet as fact, when we know this is political positioning.

Ironically there are a lot of people who believe the Labour claim that the Tories will sell off the NHS. Some have even post as much on this forum. I wonder what thst says about their intelligence?

UK would be a better place if they had a more continental, heavily regulated private health system with free insurance for those who can't afford it.

NHS is sh!t and it boils my p!ss no-one in this country will have a reasonable debate on why it is sh!t and how to improve it.

Borderline religious. Drs and nurses are 'saints' and 'heroes'. It's a joke.

Would make a good thread on its own. Just not now because it is sacrilege. They saved us all.

I agree with you by the way, and so will anyone who has lived in, for example, Germany or Canada. (not the US, god no)

My brother lives in Canada. He is less enamoured of the Canadian system as a friend has to part fund their ongoing cancer medication to the tune of several hundred dollars a month. Their insurance only covers half the cost.

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

This is a genuine tweet.

https://twitter.com/TrumpStudents/status/1300868640489824256

Is that tweet any different in a political sense to Labour tweeting the Tories will sell off the NHS?

I fully expect wildly partisan tweets from supporters on both sides over the next 2 months.

The difference is if Rick supported this position, he would relay the tweet as fact, when we know this is political positioning.

Ironically there are a lot of people who believe the Labour claim that the Tories will sell off the NHS. Some have even post as much on this forum. I wonder what thst says about their intelligence?

UK would be a better place if they had a more continental, heavily regulated private health system with free insurance for those who can't afford it.

NHS is sh!t and it boils my p!ss no-one in this country will have a reasonable debate on why it is sh!t and how to improve it.

Borderline religious. Drs and nurses are 'saints' and 'heroes'. It's a joke.

Would make a good thread on its own. Just not now because it is sacrilege. They saved us all.

I agree with you by the way, and so will anyone who has lived in, for example, Germany or Canada. (not the US, god no)

My brother lives in Canada. He is less enamoured of the Canadian system as a friend has to part fund their ongoing cancer medication to the tune of several hundred dollars a month. Their insurance only covers half the cost.

They have to pay for ambulances as well which given the size of Canada can be quite costly. As a result, lots of people use taxis instead.

It was more of a better/worse point I was raising. Sorry in advance for the long post...

The Canadian system as I understood it is that the health provision is semi-private and coordinated at provincial level. You are then obliged to pay a provincial health insurance to get general healthcare treatment. You then optionally pay private health insurance on top. Most employers offer this as a package.

99% of the the time it is free at the point of care for Canadian residents. Only when you need more extensive treatment do you run up against the limits of prescription cover, physio cover etc. and only then do you get into the pay and claim back from insurance situation. Who knows, but some insurers might deal direct with hospitals.

I had to pay for an ambulance, yes, for an RTA. It was about $200. I think the idea is to dissuade people from calling 911 to complain about a cold pizza, as here. However top-up health cover would usually reimburse. Mine didn't because the invoice took 6 months to arrive and the case was already closed. And I had to top up prescriptions for a time. I was employed 12 hours a week to sleep during Chemistry labs so my top-up cover was, though very good value for what I paid, about as basic as it comes.

This is not the best model, but it is much more more affordable for the individual than ours. So, people don't volunteer for more expense to cover health issues they don't have yet. That's human nature. Perhaps if I went back I would. Perhaps if you are Canadian and can afford it, as you get older and wiser you pay more.

A private or semi-private model doesn't necessitate skimpy cover, though.

In Canada, for example, if they made the provincial insurance 5 times as much, that would probably solve most of the issues. I think that would still be cheaper than here, and the hospitals and privately funded staff and services therein would still be more efficient. That would be an anathema to most Canadians, but this is more like the German model (so I'm told by a German colleague - who is rare amongst Germans in acknowledging that not quite everything is better there).

All of this is separate from the question of whether someone travelling in a country from abroad should get free treatment. That is a thorny one. I've had free treatment in the Caribbean and I was both very grateful and slightly ashamed. In Canada, I paid in advance when I hurt my knee skiing and this seemed fair enough.

I'm open minded on that one.

TheBigBean

I think there is significant factor you are missing about Canadian healthcare. No private healthcare service is allowed which is why Canadians go to the US for treatment, and why Americans think that the "social healthcare" of Canada is fundamentally broken.

Also, ambulance bills are not purely to dissuade users. If you are medically transferred from a small town's health centre to a large city, you get stung for the bill, in advance, even if you can hardly move. "Just sign here please"

So overall, I would much rather have the NHS.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

I think there is significant factor you are missing about Canadian healthcare. No private healthcare service is allowed which is why Canadians go to the US for treatment, and why Americans think that the "social healthcare" of Canada is fundamentally broken.

Also, ambulance bills are not purely to dissuade users. If you are medically transferred from a small town's health centre to a large city, you get stung for the bill, in advance, even if you can hardly move. "Just sign here please"

So overall, I would much rather have the NHS.

ah yes, as opposed to the ambulance ride followed by a 5-24hr queue.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

I think there is significant factor you are missing about Canadian healthcare. No private healthcare service is allowed which is why Canadians go to the US for treatment, and why Americans think that the "social healthcare" of Canada is fundamentally broken.

Also, ambulance bills are not purely to dissuade users. If you are medically transferred from a small town's health centre to a large city, you get stung for the bill, in advance, even if you can hardly move. "Just sign here please"

So overall, I would much rather have the NHS.

That's not correct. I did some googling because it didn't make sense to me. The law officially seems to be aimed at a positive exclusion of overlap between public/private. i.e. If a service is offered from a provincial hospital, it is theoretically illegal to also offer it privately in competition. Private healthcare can cover anything not provided publicly and private healthcare insurance can top up public healthcare costs. Also I don't think operating as a private contractor within a public hospital is prohibited.

In any case, the federal law does not seem to be enforced against private healthcare companies.

The ambulance issue is problematic, but a separate issue and, in the context of the UK it needn't arise. Part of the reason it exists like this in Canada is simply because of the size of the country, and that the Provinces seem to have at some point in the past decided that it is unaffordable on the public purse. An "ambulance" in large parts of the country - albeit for very few people - is actually a float plane.

It is a crappy situation and a postcode lottery. So yes, I do prefer our way.

You do have to "sign here" yes. But not pay at that point. Or at least I didn't. And you aren't going to be left bleeding to death at the side of the road, any more than you would in the US.

The issue isn't Canada or the NHS, chose one. Because there is a whole spectrum of options available. It is simply to question if the NHS in its current form is the best way to go about things, or affordable in the medium to long term. Clearly it isn't, and as RC says, there is almost a hysterical response to any suggestions that it could or should be changed.

It should not be that you are labelled a raving right wing Tory for even suggesting it. Trust me, I'm not. I just take the view that every political party is wrong about something, and those that play to the voters by simplistically deifying the NHS and lashing out at any possible suggestion that it should be better for what it costs are ultimately leading us to a bad conclusion.

DeVlaeminck

rick_chasey said:

DeVlaeminck said:

- but I don't really understand the hobbyist protesters like antifa whose actions seem to harm the causes they profess to support.

Clue's in the name.

It's not really is it - not if they are actually turning people towards the views they are protesting against.

Unless you didn't understand the post - I thought it was pretty clear but maybe not clear enough for everyone.

capt_slog

I can't find the details of it now, but I recall there can be a charge for UK ambulances.

I'm sure I've seen it at the A+E reception desk in the past, there used to be a notice about the charge if you are brought in as a result of a road accident. I think it's usually paid by the insurance company of whoever is to blame, but the essence of the notice was a warning that you could have to pay.

It was some time ago since I last saw it, but I think the amount was £50 or less.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I think there is significant factor you are missing about Canadian healthcare. No private healthcare service is allowed which is why Canadians go to the US for treatment, and why Americans think that the "social healthcare" of Canada is fundamentally broken.

Also, ambulance bills are not purely to dissuade users. If you are medically transferred from a small town's health centre to a large city, you get stung for the bill, in advance, even if you can hardly move. "Just sign here please"

So overall, I would much rather have the NHS.

ah yes, as opposed to the ambulance ride followed by a 5-24hr queue.

I'm not arguing that the NHS can't be improved, just that the Canadian system is far from perfect and other models are available.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

rick_chasey said:

DeVlaeminck said:

- but I don't really understand the hobbyist protesters like antifa whose actions seem to harm the causes they profess to support.

Clue's in the name.

It's not really is it - not if they are actually turning people towards the views they are protesting against.

Unless you didn't understand the post - I thought it was pretty clear but maybe not clear enough for everyone.

The anti-christ isn't just going around doing nothing is he?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I think there is significant factor you are missing about Canadian healthcare. No private healthcare service is allowed which is why Canadians go to the US for treatment, and why Americans think that the "social healthcare" of Canada is fundamentally broken.

Also, ambulance bills are not purely to dissuade users. If you are medically transferred from a small town's health centre to a large city, you get stung for the bill, in advance, even if you can hardly move. "Just sign here please"

So overall, I would much rather have the NHS.

ah yes, as opposed to the ambulance ride followed by a 5-24hr queue.

I'm not arguing that the NHS can't be improved, just that the Canadian system is far from perfect and other models are available.

I think everyone can pick a hole in whatever health services there is and I think we probably expect too much of health services generally.

I just think, fundamentally, the current model suffers all the problems you would expect to have in what is basically a socialist set up and that is vast under-investment. More or less everything else stems from that.

universal helthcare is a very important component in public health, but quite high up the list is the amount of good quality investment you put into public health and the UK is, for its wealth, severely lacking in that regard.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

I think there is significant factor you are missing about Canadian healthcare. No private healthcare service is allowed which is why Canadians go to the US for treatment, and why Americans think that the "social healthcare" of Canada is fundamentally broken.

Also, ambulance bills are not purely to dissuade users. If you are medically transferred from a small town's health centre to a large city, you get stung for the bill, in advance, even if you can hardly move. "Just sign here please"

So overall, I would much rather have the NHS.

That's not correct. I did some googling because it didn't make sense to me. The law officially seems to be aimed at a positive exclusion of overlap between public/private. i.e. If a service is offered from a provincial hospital, it is theoretically illegal to also offer it privately in competition. Private healthcare can cover anything not provided publicly and private healthcare insurance can top up public healthcare costs. Also I don't think operating as a private contractor within a public hospital is prohibited.

In any case, the federal law does not seem to be enforced against private healthcare companies.

The ambulance issue is problematic, but a separate issue and, in the context of the UK it needn't arise. Part of the reason it exists like this in Canada is simply because of the size of the country, and that the Provinces seem to have at some point in the past decided that it is unaffordable on the public purse. An "ambulance" in large parts of the country - albeit for very few people - is actually a float plane.

It is a crappy situation and a postcode lottery. So yes, I do prefer our way.

You do have to "sign here" yes. But not pay at that point. Or at least I didn't. And you aren't going to be left bleeding to death at the side of the road, any more than you would in the US.

The issue isn't Canada or the NHS, chose one. Because there is a whole spectrum of options available. It is simply to question if the NHS in its current form is the best way to go about things, or affordable in the medium to long term. Clearly it isn't, and as RC says, there is almost a hysterical response to any suggestions that it could or should be changed.

It should not be that you are labelled a raving right wing Tory for even suggesting it. Trust me, I'm not. I just take the view that every political party is wrong about something, and those that play to the voters by simplistically deifying the NHS and lashing out at any possible suggestion that it should be better for what it costs are ultimately leading us to a bad conclusion.

I agree with your conclusion. I just think that the Canadian system deserves to be criticised too. Yes, there is private healthcare for additional things, but fundamentally you are not supposed to be able to get preferential treatment for something offered by the public health system. I'm not sure I agree with that although I understand the argument in favour.

And just as in the US, you are not left dying on the streets, but left with a bill you might not be able to pay. My clients were basically given the credit card slip to sign when they could hardly move for the $2000 transfer that was medically necessary, because the provincial facility didn't have the ability to do something. They were foreign though. However, I knew Canadians who would take taxis with serious leg breaks to avoid the charge. It's just not a system I liked.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

I think there is significant factor you are missing about Canadian healthcare. No private healthcare service is allowed which is why Canadians go to the US for treatment, and why Americans think that the "social healthcare" of Canada is fundamentally broken.

Also, ambulance bills are not purely to dissuade users. If you are medically transferred from a small town's health centre to a large city, you get stung for the bill, in advance, even if you can hardly move. "Just sign here please"

So overall, I would much rather have the NHS.

That's not correct. I did some googling because it didn't make sense to me. The law officially seems to be aimed at a positive exclusion of overlap between public/private. i.e. If a service is offered from a provincial hospital, it is theoretically illegal to also offer it privately in competition. Private healthcare can cover anything not provided publicly and private healthcare insurance can top up public healthcare costs. Also I don't think operating as a private contractor within a public hospital is prohibited.

In any case, the federal law does not seem to be enforced against private healthcare companies.

The ambulance issue is problematic, but a separate issue and, in the context of the UK it needn't arise. Part of the reason it exists like this in Canada is simply because of the size of the country, and that the Provinces seem to have at some point in the past decided that it is unaffordable on the public purse. An "ambulance" in large parts of the country - albeit for very few people - is actually a float plane.

It is a crappy situation and a postcode lottery. So yes, I do prefer our way.

You do have to "sign here" yes. But not pay at that point. Or at least I didn't. And you aren't going to be left bleeding to death at the side of the road, any more than you would in the US.

The issue isn't Canada or the NHS, chose one. Because there is a whole spectrum of options available. It is simply to question if the NHS in its current form is the best way to go about things, or affordable in the medium to long term. Clearly it isn't, and as RC says, there is almost a hysterical response to any suggestions that it could or should be changed.

It should not be that you are labelled a raving right wing Tory for even suggesting it. Trust me, I'm not. I just take the view that every political party is wrong about something, and those that play to the voters by simplistically deifying the NHS and lashing out at any possible suggestion that it should be better for what it costs are ultimately leading us to a bad conclusion.

I agree with your conclusion. I just think that the Canadian system deserves to be criticised too. Yes, there is private healthcare for additional things, but fundamentally you are not supposed to be able to get preferential treatment for something offered by the public health system. I'm not sure I agree with that although I understand the argument in favour.

And just as in the US, you are not left dying on the streets, but left with a bill you might not be able to pay. My clients were basically given the credit card slip to sign when they could hardly move for the $2000 transfer that was medically necessary, because the provincial facility didn't have the ability to do something. They were foreign though. However, I knew Canadians who would take taxis with serious leg breaks to avoid the charge. It's just not a system I liked.

It's a fair point. I just found that seeing other options made me question the NHS.

I struggle to see any positives in the US approach.

surrey_commuter

capt_slog said:

I can't find the details of it now, but I recall there can be a charge for UK ambulances.

I'm sure I've seen it at the A+E reception desk in the past, there used to be a notice about the charge if you are brought in as a result of a road accident. I think it's usually paid by the insurance company of whoever is to blame, but the essence of the notice was a warning that you could have to pay.

It was some time ago since I last saw it, but I think the amount was £50 or less.

In a RTA you get billed, it is up to you to try and claim it back from the any insurance company.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

I think there is significant factor you are missing about Canadian healthcare. No private healthcare service is allowed which is why Canadians go to the US for treatment, and why Americans think that the "social healthcare" of Canada is fundamentally broken.

Also, ambulance bills are not purely to dissuade users. If you are medically transferred from a small town's health centre to a large city, you get stung for the bill, in advance, even if you can hardly move. "Just sign here please"

So overall, I would much rather have the NHS.

That's not correct. I did some googling because it didn't make sense to me. The law officially seems to be aimed at a positive exclusion of overlap between public/private. i.e. If a service is offered from a provincial hospital, it is theoretically illegal to also offer it privately in competition. Private healthcare can cover anything not provided publicly and private healthcare insurance can top up public healthcare costs. Also I don't think operating as a private contractor within a public hospital is prohibited.

In any case, the federal law does not seem to be enforced against private healthcare companies.

The ambulance issue is problematic, but a separate issue and, in the context of the UK it needn't arise. Part of the reason it exists like this in Canada is simply because of the size of the country, and that the Provinces seem to have at some point in the past decided that it is unaffordable on the public purse. An "ambulance" in large parts of the country - albeit for very few people - is actually a float plane.

It is a crappy situation and a postcode lottery. So yes, I do prefer our way.

You do have to "sign here" yes. But not pay at that point. Or at least I didn't. And you aren't going to be left bleeding to death at the side of the road, any more than you would in the US.

The issue isn't Canada or the NHS, chose one. Because there is a whole spectrum of options available. It is simply to question if the NHS in its current form is the best way to go about things, or affordable in the medium to long term. Clearly it isn't, and as RC says, there is almost a hysterical response to any suggestions that it could or should be changed.

It should not be that you are labelled a raving right wing Tory for even suggesting it. Trust me, I'm not. I just take the view that every political party is wrong about something, and those that play to the voters by simplistically deifying the NHS and lashing out at any possible suggestion that it should be better for what it costs are ultimately leading us to a bad conclusion.

I agree with your conclusion. I just think that the Canadian system deserves to be criticised too. Yes, there is private healthcare for additional things, but fundamentally you are not supposed to be able to get preferential treatment for something offered by the public health system. I'm not sure I agree with that although I understand the argument in favour.

And just as in the US, you are not left dying on the streets, but left with a bill you might not be able to pay. My clients were basically given the credit card slip to sign when they could hardly move for the $2000 transfer that was medically necessary, because the provincial facility didn't have the ability to do something. They were foreign though. However, I knew Canadians who would take taxis with serious leg breaks to avoid the charge. It's just not a system I liked.

It's a fair point. I just found that seeing other options made me question the NHS.

I struggle to see any positives in the US approach.

Supposedly, they have some of the best doctors, because they can make a fortune, but yes I agree.

For what it is worth, in my view, the NHS needs to spend money on admin and managers. Precisely the people that have been removed in order to spend more on doctors and nurses. The decision to abolish the PCTs was also utterly naive and very damaging to primary care.

morstar

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

I think there is significant factor you are missing about Canadian healthcare. No private healthcare service is allowed which is why Canadians go to the US for treatment, and why Americans think that the "social healthcare" of Canada is fundamentally broken.

Also, ambulance bills are not purely to dissuade users. If you are medically transferred from a small town's health centre to a large city, you get stung for the bill, in advance, even if you can hardly move. "Just sign here please"

So overall, I would much rather have the NHS.

That's not correct. I did some googling because it didn't make sense to me. The law officially seems to be aimed at a positive exclusion of overlap between public/private. i.e. If a service is offered from a provincial hospital, it is theoretically illegal to also offer it privately in competition. Private healthcare can cover anything not provided publicly and private healthcare insurance can top up public healthcare costs. Also I don't think operating as a private contractor within a public hospital is prohibited.

In any case, the federal law does not seem to be enforced against private healthcare companies.

The ambulance issue is problematic, but a separate issue and, in the context of the UK it needn't arise. Part of the reason it exists like this in Canada is simply because of the size of the country, and that the Provinces seem to have at some point in the past decided that it is unaffordable on the public purse. An "ambulance" in large parts of the country - albeit for very few people - is actually a float plane.

It is a crappy situation and a postcode lottery. So yes, I do prefer our way.

You do have to "sign here" yes. But not pay at that point. Or at least I didn't. And you aren't going to be left bleeding to death at the side of the road, any more than you would in the US.

The issue isn't Canada or the NHS, chose one. Because there is a whole spectrum of options available. It is simply to question if the NHS in its current form is the best way to go about things, or affordable in the medium to long term. Clearly it isn't, and as RC says, there is almost a hysterical response to any suggestions that it could or should be changed.

It should not be that you are labelled a raving right wing Tory for even suggesting it. Trust me, I'm not. I just take the view that every political party is wrong about something, and those that play to the voters by simplistically deifying the NHS and lashing out at any possible suggestion that it should be better for what it costs are ultimately leading us to a bad conclusion.

I agree with your conclusion. I just think that the Canadian system deserves to be criticised too. Yes, there is private healthcare for additional things, but fundamentally you are not supposed to be able to get preferential treatment for something offered by the public health system. I'm not sure I agree with that although I understand the argument in favour.

And just as in the US, you are not left dying on the streets, but left with a bill you might not be able to pay. My clients were basically given the credit card slip to sign when they could hardly move for the $2000 transfer that was medically necessary, because the provincial facility didn't have the ability to do something. They were foreign though. However, I knew Canadians who would take taxis with serious leg breaks to avoid the charge. It's just not a system I liked.

It's a fair point. I just found that seeing other options made me question the NHS.

I struggle to see any positives in the US approach.

Supposedly, they have some of the best doctors, because they can make a fortune, but yes I agree.

For what it is worth, in my view, the NHS needs to spend money on admin and managers. Precisely the people that have been removed in order to spend more on doctors and nurses. The decision to abolish the PCTs was also utterly naive and very damaging to primary care.

Administration is a thorny one. Great administration pays for itself multiple times over but poor administration is just a money drain. Too many freeloaders are drawn to public service and the talent is stifled by lack of autonomy.

Good managers with autonomy are needed.

A team of superstar doctors and nurses is no different to a team of superstar footballers. All the skill in the world doesn’t compensate for lack of organisation and leadership. Good managers are worth their weight in gold.

TheBigBean

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

I think there is significant factor you are missing about Canadian healthcare. No private healthcare service is allowed which is why Canadians go to the US for treatment, and why Americans think that the "social healthcare" of Canada is fundamentally broken.

Also, ambulance bills are not purely to dissuade users. If you are medically transferred from a small town's health centre to a large city, you get stung for the bill, in advance, even if you can hardly move. "Just sign here please"

So overall, I would much rather have the NHS.

That's not correct. I did some googling because it didn't make sense to me. The law officially seems to be aimed at a positive exclusion of overlap between public/private. i.e. If a service is offered from a provincial hospital, it is theoretically illegal to also offer it privately in competition. Private healthcare can cover anything not provided publicly and private healthcare insurance can top up public healthcare costs. Also I don't think operating as a private contractor within a public hospital is prohibited.

In any case, the federal law does not seem to be enforced against private healthcare companies.

The ambulance issue is problematic, but a separate issue and, in the context of the UK it needn't arise. Part of the reason it exists like this in Canada is simply because of the size of the country, and that the Provinces seem to have at some point in the past decided that it is unaffordable on the public purse. An "ambulance" in large parts of the country - albeit for very few people - is actually a float plane.

It is a crappy situation and a postcode lottery. So yes, I do prefer our way.

You do have to "sign here" yes. But not pay at that point. Or at least I didn't. And you aren't going to be left bleeding to death at the side of the road, any more than you would in the US.

The issue isn't Canada or the NHS, chose one. Because there is a whole spectrum of options available. It is simply to question if the NHS in its current form is the best way to go about things, or affordable in the medium to long term. Clearly it isn't, and as RC says, there is almost a hysterical response to any suggestions that it could or should be changed.

It should not be that you are labelled a raving right wing Tory for even suggesting it. Trust me, I'm not. I just take the view that every political party is wrong about something, and those that play to the voters by simplistically deifying the NHS and lashing out at any possible suggestion that it should be better for what it costs are ultimately leading us to a bad conclusion.

I agree with your conclusion. I just think that the Canadian system deserves to be criticised too. Yes, there is private healthcare for additional things, but fundamentally you are not supposed to be able to get preferential treatment for something offered by the public health system. I'm not sure I agree with that although I understand the argument in favour.

And just as in the US, you are not left dying on the streets, but left with a bill you might not be able to pay. My clients were basically given the credit card slip to sign when they could hardly move for the $2000 transfer that was medically necessary, because the provincial facility didn't have the ability to do something. They were foreign though. However, I knew Canadians who would take taxis with serious leg breaks to avoid the charge. It's just not a system I liked.

It's a fair point. I just found that seeing other options made me question the NHS.

I struggle to see any positives in the US approach.

Supposedly, they have some of the best doctors, because they can make a fortune, but yes I agree.

For what it is worth, in my view, the NHS needs to spend money on admin and managers. Precisely the people that have been removed in order to spend more on doctors and nurses. The decision to abolish the PCTs was also utterly naive and very damaging to primary care.

Administration is a thorny one. Great administration pays for itself multiple times over but poor administration is just a money drain. Too many freeloaders are drawn to public service and the talent is stifled by lack of autonomy.

Good managers with autonomy are needed.

A team of superstar doctors and nurses is no different to a team of superstar footballers. All the skill in the world doesn’t compensate for lack of organisation and leadership. Good managers are worth their weight in gold.

Indeed. When a friend was in a maternity ward, some woman spent an extra night there because she didn't know she had been discharged. I just couldn't understand how that could possibly happen until I spent some time on a maternity to ward.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

I think there is significant factor you are missing about Canadian healthcare. No private healthcare service is allowed which is why Canadians go to the US for treatment, and why Americans think that the "social healthcare" of Canada is fundamentally broken.

Also, ambulance bills are not purely to dissuade users. If you are medically transferred from a small town's health centre to a large city, you get stung for the bill, in advance, even if you can hardly move. "Just sign here please"

So overall, I would much rather have the NHS.

That's not correct. I did some googling because it didn't make sense to me. The law officially seems to be aimed at a positive exclusion of overlap between public/private. i.e. If a service is offered from a provincial hospital, it is theoretically illegal to also offer it privately in competition. Private healthcare can cover anything not provided publicly and private healthcare insurance can top up public healthcare costs. Also I don't think operating as a private contractor within a public hospital is prohibited.

In any case, the federal law does not seem to be enforced against private healthcare companies.

The ambulance issue is problematic, but a separate issue and, in the context of the UK it needn't arise. Part of the reason it exists like this in Canada is simply because of the size of the country, and that the Provinces seem to have at some point in the past decided that it is unaffordable on the public purse. An "ambulance" in large parts of the country - albeit for very few people - is actually a float plane.

It is a crappy situation and a postcode lottery. So yes, I do prefer our way.

You do have to "sign here" yes. But not pay at that point. Or at least I didn't. And you aren't going to be left bleeding to death at the side of the road, any more than you would in the US.

The issue isn't Canada or the NHS, chose one. Because there is a whole spectrum of options available. It is simply to question if the NHS in its current form is the best way to go about things, or affordable in the medium to long term. Clearly it isn't, and as RC says, there is almost a hysterical response to any suggestions that it could or should be changed.

It should not be that you are labelled a raving right wing Tory for even suggesting it. Trust me, I'm not. I just take the view that every political party is wrong about something, and those that play to the voters by simplistically deifying the NHS and lashing out at any possible suggestion that it should be better for what it costs are ultimately leading us to a bad conclusion.

I agree with your conclusion. I just think that the Canadian system deserves to be criticised too. Yes, there is private healthcare for additional things, but fundamentally you are not supposed to be able to get preferential treatment for something offered by the public health system. I'm not sure I agree with that although I understand the argument in favour.

And just as in the US, you are not left dying on the streets, but left with a bill you might not be able to pay. My clients were basically given the credit card slip to sign when they could hardly move for the $2000 transfer that was medically necessary, because the provincial facility didn't have the ability to do something. They were foreign though. However, I knew Canadians who would take taxis with serious leg breaks to avoid the charge. It's just not a system I liked.

It's a fair point. I just found that seeing other options made me question the NHS.

I struggle to see any positives in the US approach.

Supposedly, they have some of the best doctors, because they can make a fortune, but yes I agree.

For what it is worth, in my view, the NHS needs to spend money on admin and managers. Precisely the people that have been removed in order to spend more on doctors and nurses. The decision to abolish the PCTs was also utterly naive and very damaging to primary care.

Administration is a thorny one. Great administration pays for itself multiple times over but poor administration is just a money drain. Too many freeloaders are drawn to public service and the talent is stifled by lack of autonomy.

Good managers with autonomy are needed.

A team of superstar doctors and nurses is no different to a team of superstar footballers. All the skill in the world doesn’t compensate for lack of organisation and leadership. Good managers are worth their weight in gold.

Indeed. When a friend was in a maternity ward, some woman spent an extra night there because she didn't know she had been discharged. I just couldn't understand how that could possibly happen until I spent some time on a maternity to ward.

Mmm. NHS hospitals are like hotel California.

I had a post traumatic response to my first stay because the nursing was so bad. Not sure my bladder ever fully recovered.

Anyhow, second time I would have had to take an extra nights stay for want of a form.

I walked out then and there (on crutches).

briantrumpet

And then compare that with my mum, who spent nearly three weeks on a cardiac ward recently (at Southmead in Bristol), and had the most amazing treatment - even though it was ultimately in vain, they tried everything they could, so humanely, that I was just in awe of the set-up and management. Even the fast-track palliative care, which would have paid every penny of 24-hour nursing for 12 weeks was approved in less than 24 hours, every aspect being handled by the NHS until she arrived at the nursing home without a single hitch.

pangolin

Sorry to hear that Brian. Interestingly I was going to reply that my experience of a maternity ward had been pretty good unlike TBBs, and that was also Southmead in Bristol.

briantrumpet

pangolin said:

Sorry to hear that Brian. Interestingly I was going to reply that my experience of a maternity ward had been pretty good unlike TBBs, and that was also Southmead in Bristol.

Thanks.

I think both Southmead, which had a stunning rebuild, and the RD&E in Exeter are places where the staff are really proud to work - and it shows. I certainly know the latter is somewhere where consultants really want to work, and a doctor I know told me that if she had a relation who needed hospital treatment, Southmead (where she has done work) is where she'd want them to be.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

pangolin said:

Sorry to hear that Brian. Interestingly I was going to reply that my experience of a maternity ward had been pretty good unlike TBBs, and that was also Southmead in Bristol.

Thanks.

I think both Southmead, which had a stunning rebuild, and the RD&E in Exeter are places where the staff are really proud to work - and it shows. I certainly know the latter is somewhere where consultants really want to work, and a doctor I know told me that if she had a relation who needed hospital treatment, Southmead (where she has done work) is where she'd want them to be.

Interesting. My parents moved and my Mother switched from Norfolk and Norwich to Royal berkshire (Reading) who instantly correctly diagnosed and cured her longstanding eye problems. My assumption was that if you were at the top of your game you would be unlikely to want to bury yourself in Norfolk.

First.Aspect

Don't get me wrong, the actual surgical work I had was world class. That X-ray by all accounts really should just show a single bolt, vertically.

But the bureaucracy and disorganisation on the particular ward I was on was ... problematic. Also, I got a bollxing for things like (i) "bothering" a doctor due to extreme pain (I ended up with nerve damage as a result of excess swelling while I waited) (ii) wanting to pull the curtains round my bed to get some sleep on account of being awake all night with... extreme pain (iii) needing the toilet and being unable to walk due to my foot being held together with glue and... extreme pain.

Oh, and I also saw two old guys with dementia, immediately post surgery from a broken hip, unattended climb out of bed, fall on the floor and scream with ... extreme pain. One copied the other. Nurse was on break outside the ward and I shouted myself nearly hoarse to get them in there.

There were a couple of members of nursing staff I swear I wouldn't try to avoid if they stepped in front of my car. I'd be doing the world a favour. Happily I can't remember any faces now.

Brand new hospital at the time, fwiw.

pangolin

Standardisation is always going to be a challenge with things as big as the NHS. I think a lot of the problems in discussing it are 1 person's anecdotal experience doesn't agree with another person's, so they just argue rather than acknowledge they might both be telling the truth about what they experienced.

First.Aspect

pangolin said:

Standardisation is always going to be a challenge with things as big as the NHS. I think a lot of the problems in discussing it are 1 person's anecdotal experience doesn't agree with another person's, so they just argue rather than acknowledge they might both be telling the truth about what they experienced.

Eh?

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

Don't get me wrong, the actual surgical work I had was world class. That X-ray by all accounts really should just show a single bolt, vertically.

But the bureaucracy and disorganisation on the particular ward I was on was ... problematic. Also, I got a bollxing for things like (i) "bothering" a doctor due to extreme pain (I ended up with nerve damage as a result of excess swelling while I waited) (ii) wanting to pull the curtains round my bed to get some sleep on account of being awake all night with... extreme pain (iii) needing the toilet and being unable to walk due to my foot being held together with glue and... extreme pain.

Oh, and I also saw two old guys with dementia, immediately post surgery from a broken hip, unattended climb out of bed, fall on the floor and scream with ... extreme pain. One copied the other. Nurse was on break outside the ward and I shouted myself nearly hoarse to get them in there.

There were a couple of members of nursing staff I swear I wouldn't try to avoid if they stepped in front of my car. I'd be doing the world a favour. Happily I can't remember any faces now.

Brand new hospital at the time, fwiw.

My sister in law's father was killed by medical incompetence and the Dr conducting the review handed her the card of a lawyer so she could sue for malpractise, when she declined the offer he insisted on the grounds that otherwise nothing would change.

rick_chasey

As a general rule, emergency and "typical"serious cases are handled really well. (e.g. common cancers, etc).

"urgent" and atypical problems are usually handled badly.

If I had to summarise.

pangolin

First.Aspect said:

pangolin said:

Standardisation is always going to be a challenge with things as big as the NHS. I think a lot of the problems in discussing it are 1 person's anecdotal experience doesn't agree with another person's, so they just argue rather than acknowledge they might both be telling the truth about what they experienced.

Eh?

Which bit?

Bob says NHS is sh!t. Frank says it's great. Bob really did had a terrible experience with his specific GP / consultant / nurse / whatever. Frank had a great one. Argument ensues.

It is hard for any org that big to provide a consistent service, of whatever level.

pinno

I have attended/stayed in the following hospitals:

The Hammersmith
Bristol - St Micheals
Cheltenham General
Glasgow Royal
The Golden Jubilee, Glasgow
Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary
Oxford Nuffield and
The Edinburgh Western

With a contrast in experiences.

...nut none of that is relevant to this thread.

Can we get back on topic please?

briantrumpet

pinno said:

I have attended/stayed in the following hospitals:

The Hammersmith
Bristol - St Micheals
Cheltenham General
Glasgow Royal
The Golden Jubilee, Glasgow
Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary
Oxford Nuffield and
The Edinburgh Western

With a contrast in experiences.

...nut none of that is relevant to this thread.

Can we get back on topic please?

Trump is a lying, brain-addled wannabe authoritarian who's up to his eyeballs in illegal shït.

Better?