VENEZUELA : HEALTH CARE REVOLUTION.

POSTED BY: Howard
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 02:11
VIEWED: 8994
PAGE 3 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Monday, October 17, 2005 4:38 PM

Howard:
Firstly please notice that I also requested people attacking you on those other threads to not do so. Lynch didn't attack you, he expressed an opinion, and too solely attack him out of hand is as bad as what the other posters directed at yourself.

Quote:
Origianlly posted by Howard:
I will say one thing for our flawed British
system and that I may live in Manchester but
I would be treated anywhere in the UK
without an arguement.

Exactly. Anyone, anywhere in the UK can get health care. That's a nationalised health service. Health care is a right, not a privalage. No matter how cheap private Health care is some people won't be able to afford it, and therefore will not have it.

As for the flaws in the NHS I would argue a lot of that comes from the miscare of the Conservative goverment, who wished to privatise it, probably to the companies/individuals who just happened to fund their campaigns.

Quote:
It is interesting that the UK, US, Canada
and France all have different systems but
in a short-term crisis they all start to
cave-in under pressure.

I recognise the failings of the NHS, but I think they did pretty well during the bomings on the 7th of July, which was a pretty strong test.

Quote:
Originally posted by INEVITABLEBETRAYAL(who's name I can never spell...):
Whew! Good thing the opening of the BDM is behind us! I was getting so sick of us being united behind something. Sure is good that we can get back to squabbling amongst ourselves about the leaders of South American countries, socialism vs. capitalism, and the evils of the US government. I was so tired of all that good will...

Yeah,

good will!

...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

SIGNYM

Monday, October 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Quote:
Dear, dear SignyM. I can always count on you to come up with a different way to say, "Canttakesky, you're ignorant" on just about every thread.I am not unaware of the statistics you cited or the fact that some sections of the medical industry are more greedy and corrupt than others (i.e. pharma and insurance).

Sorry for the impression. I was responding to your very global statements about the "health care system". One of the indicators that the entire health care system is not equally robust is the fact that hopsitals are going bankrupt. Another inidctor is that medical school applications are going down. Just out of curiosity I some quick inet research on insurance, pharma, hospital, medical practice profitabiltiy, and the insurances and pharmas are clearly well ahead. Due to serious family illnesses, I have far far too much contact with the health care industry at all levels, and I know by talking to doctors and nurses that they are overbooked. And while their pay isn't bad, it certainly deosn't compare to that of... say... an insurance salesperson. The whole hospital system would fall aprt if it wasn't for slave-wage interns and residents working 80-hour weeks. So it doesn't seem to be a fault of the actual providers so much as the middle-men. Just my impression.

I do agree that the health care industry is clearly a case of corporate welfare on steroids. Two of the biggest props to pharmas are ridiculous patent laws and the latest Medicaid giveaway. The whole system DOES need to be reformed. But taking away medical insurance is like taking away automobile insurance- there is no way that anyone could pay for a medical catastrophe, not matter HOW cheap medical care became. The point of insurance is to spread the risk so that each individual family doesn't have to save up $100,000 for the illness that may never come.

Please don't think they give a shit.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 17, 2005 5:32 PM

My impression of the British health care system is that it... in a word... sucks. I have numerous cotnacts with parents in Britain through my involvement in the Mass General bbx, and it sounds like a nightmare of long waiting lists, scanty care, and doctors with a serious god complex. I mean, I know one kid who suffered permanent brain damage while waiting for resective epilespy surgery; another kid who was sent home to die w/o either a trache or morphine; another kid who was seen by a doctors who was (in essence) a quck and who had been mis-medicating her for years. Getting a second opinion is tantamount to treason, and since there seem to be far fewer available doctors and far fewer options, its well-nigh impossible. The one good thing about the insurance companies in the USA: it has taken that god-complex sheen off the doctors.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the British system, but it remains terribly underfunded per capita compared to France of Germany. Perhaps that originated with Maggie Thatcher but it remains a problem under Tony Blair.

Please don't think they give a shit.

HOWARD

Monday, October 17, 2005 6:19 PM

Just like Canada or any country
the UK and the NHS is both good
and bad per location.

I live in Manchester and I do have
confidence but if I lived in Bristol
which I wouldn't do I would be
terrified!!

Here in Manchester it is excellent.
Yes there are problems at the GP
and waiting on minor complaint
appointments but when it comes to
big surgery (hip operations) or
cancer treatment etc I would put
our hospitals and our surgeons
and nurses against anything a
Hollywood superstar has access to
at a super-exclusive private hospital
in Beverly Hills.

The damage done to our NHS by Thatcher and
Blair manifests in the MRSA virus contamination
of hospitals. Caused by low wage low educated
private contrator cleaners. In the old days
medical staff supervised cleaning. The creeping
privatisation of essential services putting low
costs before health and protecting people has
caused the in-hospital virus plague.

CITIZEN

Monday, October 17, 2005 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the British system, but it remains terribly underfunded per capita compared to France of Germany. Perhaps that originated with Maggie Thatcher but it remains a problem under Tony Blair.

Quote:
Radical reform is needed - perhaps along the lines suggested by Deepak Lal, who points out that the planned expenditure by the NHS per capita in 2005-6 is no greater than the premium charged by the Kaiser Permanente insurance scheme (which has a spread of liabilities similar to that of the NHS) for much better healthcare. Why doesn't the government just decide to buy everyone comprehensive health insurance? The failings of Britain's healthcare system can no longer be blamed on under-funding, because our funding levels are rapidly catching up with those of France and even Germany.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsplan/comment/0,8005,1147236,00.html

To my mind the current problems with the NHS are the gross mismanagement of the conservative party, who, IMHO wanted to privatise it, just like the railways.
The problem is compounded by the current Labour governments desire to fix all the problems by hiring more and more administrators and less and less doctors/nurses.

NHS funding figures:
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Current+issues+in+NHS+funding+flo
ws~current+issues+in+nhs+funding+flows+-+nhs+funding

Transcript of Tony Blair's speech on the NHS 2001:
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1674.asp

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

SGTGUMP

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
...there's people in society who can't afford mechanics, or even a car.

Maybe that's because they pay half of their salary to taxes for health care. Health care for poor people who have too many children. Who have too many children because they aren't afraid of the burden of feeding and caring for them because it's placed on you, Taxpayer. And I don't see a lot of people flocking to Cuba or Venezuela so they can live in this Socialist utopia.

Socialism and communism work well on paper but in practice, it is the people that make such an idea unviable.

I think you are looking up to the wrong people.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:21 PM

Yes because in America, the land of low taxes, milk, and indeed honey, everyone can afford Health care, everyone can afford a car, everyone can afford a mechanic for said car and there are no homeless...

I'm not advocating Socialism over anything else. I'm saying it's a right, in a civilised society, to have access to a doctor, and health care, whether you can afford it or not.
Obviously you think otherwise. I hope you never find yourself in the situation where you can't afford your Health insurance bills...

And as a last addendum, I can guarantee that my National Insurance payments are a lot lower than what I'd have to pay for private health care, here or anywhere else.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

RUE

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 2:42 AM

Quote:
That Canadian Healthcare is so efficient because it saves money by denying care to those who need it long enough that they die off cheaply. Same thing with other relatives with heart conditions. No wasted resources but those who need it most go without until they die.

The true tests of a health care system are: 1) how long do people live, 2) how many infants die, 3) how much is spent.

EVERYONE can cite horror stories. Having worked in a US county hospital for 7 years, I probably saw one every day, on average. Story for story, I could match any medical nightmare from any country with one from the US, and then some. But the important questions aren't answered with anecdotal stories, but statistics.

It takes A LOT of health improvement for many millions of people in order to move average lifespan a few months. Heroic care, or lack of it, for exceptional cases (and by that I mean rare) just won't do it. Similarly, infant mortality is a difficult statistic to change w/out widespread changes in maternal and pre/peri-natal care. The US was abysmal just a few short years ago (appx 9/1,000) until the Federal government changed its policy to mandate fortifying cereal with folate. That one change alone, over the entire country, dropped infant mortality (by about 3/1,000).

Per capita spending is by its very nature a difficult statistic to change.

The sum is that these figures are robust and provide the best measure of care.

And for those who've been reading the news lately, GM was about to be brought down by - health care costs. Many other large and small employers are looking for ways to drop or reduce coverage to reduce the bottom line burden. The inefficiency of healthcare corporate bureaucracies (a private bureaucracy is STILL a bureaucracy) and the size of their profits are a major factor bleeding global US competitiveness.

Standing in contrast are the health systems of all other developed countries in the world. More coverage, better outcomes, and cheaper. Who can argue with that?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SGTGUMP

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I hope you never find yourself in the situation where you can't afford your Health insurance bills...

Your damn right. I hope I can continue to afford it also, because it is no one's responsibility but my own.

And a right? No one has any rights but what they secure for themselves. We can speak freely because people fought and killed to earn that right and would do it again. But then again, it doesn't cost you a dime if I speak, regardlees of what I say or how much I say it.

RUE

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 3:08 PM

More coverage, better outcomes, and cheaper. Who can argue with that? Well at least one person. And before us: on the one hand - results. On the other - ideology.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE