FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Angry at NHS
Angry at NHS
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t be angry at the NHS. They can only work with the resources that Tory austerity can afford. Put simply, they don’t care about your health, it is collateral damage in the pursuit of personal gain. Most Tory MPs and far too many Labour MPs have shared in private health and receive donations from private health companies. They should be put in The Tower." I dont buy that. Most professionals have stocks and shares in companies because it’s just investing. It’s what you do with money you don’t spend to protect it and hopefully grow it. Healthcare companies are good investments, just like tech companies Amazon, Microsoft etc , so most people invest in them, even indirectly through a pension. There’s no link between MP’s policy and having shares it’s conspiracy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS has been gutted by privatisation by stealth. Just because something has the blue NHS logo on it, don’t assume that particular service is being provides by the public sector. Some people will point to an increase in NHS budget but that is actually hiding the reality of where that money is going (large chunks into the pockets of shareholders of private companies that are fleecing the NHS). So many aspects of the NHS are now outsourced and far from being more efficient, those services either come with a premium (higher cost taking money away from somewhere else) or lower standard of service to match the budget (while still allowing for profit to pay dividends)." Can the NHS provide next day MRI for £199 with results within 3 days ? Why can’t they ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm guessing part of it is funding. The £ strain on the NHS grows with monetary inflation, population inflation and aging inflation. Yet they may only get the first baked into budgets. As such they find other ways of funding like hiring out mri machines. Which pisuhes NHS patients down the queue. And doctors are trained by NHS, but then take private gigs. Which reduces capacity. Imo, private needs to pay its own way entirely or the NHS should charge a bigger premium. " I think the NHS need to fully use the capacity of private because it’s clearly under utilised when you can get next day appointments for anything. Employers should be forced by law to provide private healthcare to all staff like in UAE | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS has been gutted by privatisation by stealth. Just because something has the blue NHS logo on it, don’t assume that particular service is being provides by the public sector. Some people will point to an increase in NHS budget but that is actually hiding the reality of where that money is going (large chunks into the pockets of shareholders of private companies that are fleecing the NHS). So many aspects of the NHS are now outsourced and far from being more efficient, those services either come with a premium (higher cost taking money away from somewhere else) or lower standard of service to match the budget (while still allowing for profit to pay dividends). Can the NHS provide next day MRI for £199 with results within 3 days ? Why can’t they ? " Because they don’t have infinite capacity and also have a staffing issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm guessing part of it is funding. The £ strain on the NHS grows with monetary inflation, population inflation and aging inflation. Yet they may only get the first baked into budgets. As such they find other ways of funding like hiring out mri machines. Which pisuhes NHS patients down the queue. And doctors are trained by NHS, but then take private gigs. Which reduces capacity. Imo, private needs to pay its own way entirely or the NHS should charge a bigger premium. I think the NHS need to fully use the capacity of private because it’s clearly under utilised when you can get next day appointments for anything. Employers should be forced by law to provide private healthcare to all staff like in UAE " Absolutely agree with your last point. However, will the private health insurance cover pre-existing conditions? What if you move employer and they have a different insurance provider? Will they pick up a pre-existing condition? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS has been gutted by privatisation by stealth. Just because something has the blue NHS logo on it, don’t assume that particular service is being provides by the public sector. Some people will point to an increase in NHS budget but that is actually hiding the reality of where that money is going (large chunks into the pockets of shareholders of private companies that are fleecing the NHS). So many aspects of the NHS are now outsourced and far from being more efficient, those services either come with a premium (higher cost taking money away from somewhere else) or lower standard of service to match the budget (while still allowing for profit to pay dividends). Can the NHS provide next day MRI for £199 with results within 3 days ? Why can’t they ? Because they don’t have infinite capacity and also have a staffing issue." But these private companies can and still make a profit from it apparently for shareholders so the actual cost must be very low. Isn’t it just they do it more efficiently, only e booking , cut through layers of unnecessary admin etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the NHS need to fully use the capacity of private because it’s clearly under utilised when you can get next day appointments for anything. Employers should be forced by law to provide private healthcare to all staff like in UAE " Private companies and their shareholders would absolutely love this, because it would funnel even more public sector money in to private hands. This would leave even less in the pot for fee-free treatment, and further cripple the service. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS has been gutted by privatisation by stealth. Just because something has the blue NHS logo on it, don’t assume that particular service is being provides by the public sector. Some people will point to an increase in NHS budget but that is actually hiding the reality of where that money is going (large chunks into the pockets of shareholders of private companies that are fleecing the NHS). So many aspects of the NHS are now outsourced and far from being more efficient, those services either come with a premium (higher cost taking money away from somewhere else) or lower standard of service to match the budget (while still allowing for profit to pay dividends). Can the NHS provide next day MRI for £199 with results within 3 days ? Why can’t they ? Because they don’t have infinite capacity and also have a staffing issue. But these private companies can and still make a profit from it apparently for shareholders so the actual cost must be very low. Isn’t it just they do it more efficiently, only e booking , cut through layers of unnecessary admin etc " I have no doubt the NHS could be more efficient but some of the problems have been caused by part privatisation and outsourcing that has fragmented services and increased the cost to the tax payer. While the NHS may have kit sitting there, they have a huge staff shortage so possibly not enough people to operate the kit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS has been gutted by privatisation by stealth. Just because something has the blue NHS logo on it, don’t assume that particular service is being provides by the public sector. Some people will point to an increase in NHS budget but that is actually hiding the reality of where that money is going (large chunks into the pockets of shareholders of private companies that are fleecing the NHS). So many aspects of the NHS are now outsourced and far from being more efficient, those services either come with a premium (higher cost taking money away from somewhere else) or lower standard of service to match the budget (while still allowing for profit to pay dividends). Can the NHS provide next day MRI for £199 with results within 3 days ? Why can’t they ? Because they don’t have infinite capacity and also have a staffing issue. But these private companies can and still make a profit from it apparently for shareholders so the actual cost must be very low. Isn’t it just they do it more efficiently, only e booking , cut through layers of unnecessary admin etc " based on op example, they dont own (some) equipment. Likewise, how many train doctors, and employ geme before they get to consultancy level? They can also pick and choose clients and prices. Make private fully private with no selection, and I suspect it will look different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t be angry at the NHS. They can only work with the resources that Tory austerity can afford. Put simply, they don’t care about your health, it is collateral damage in the pursuit of personal gain. Most Tory MPs and far too many Labour MPs have shared in private health and receive donations from private health companies. They should be put in The Tower. I dont buy that. Most professionals have stocks and shares in companies because it’s just investing. It’s what you do with money you don’t spend to protect it and hopefully grow it. Healthcare companies are good investments, just like tech companies Amazon, Microsoft etc , so most people invest in them, even indirectly through a pension. There’s no link between MP’s policy and having shares it’s conspiracy " But most ordinary investors don't have the power to set national government policies to benefit the companies we have invested in, to the detriment of their competition.Isn't that the worrying bit..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t be angry at the NHS. They can only work with the resources that Tory austerity can afford. Put simply, they don’t care about your health, it is collateral damage in the pursuit of personal gain. Most Tory MPs and far too many Labour MPs have shared in private health and receive donations from private health companies. They should be put in The Tower. I dont buy that. Most professionals have stocks and shares in companies because it’s just investing. It’s what you do with money you don’t spend to protect it and hopefully grow it. Healthcare companies are good investments, just like tech companies Amazon, Microsoft etc , so most people invest in them, even indirectly through a pension. There’s no link between MP’s policy and having shares it’s conspiracy But most ordinary investors don't have the power to set national government policies to benefit the companies we have invested in, to the detriment of their competition.Isn't that the worrying bit..?" I'd suspect most hold such a small percentage of any co stock, it woukdnt be noticed. (This may happen) But imo there needs to be triggers for declaration More than x% of any company. More than x% of wealth in any company. Any short/leveraged positions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t be angry at the NHS. They can only work with the resources that Tory austerity can afford. Put simply, they don’t care about your health, it is collateral damage in the pursuit of personal gain. Most Tory MPs and far too many Labour MPs have shared in private health and receive donations from private health companies. They should be put in The Tower." Do you know or speak to any people who actually use the NHS ?. If you did you would not be referring to Tory Austerity. I requested an appointment for a third party at 9 30 am , they were seen at 11 am. I make appointments for other third parties and there are never any issues. We should split up the NHS and divide it into various divisions. We should privatise part of it and use a system similar to France or Germany. Most people want a top class servive but do not want to pay for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My elderly family member paid tax her whole life, has a knee injury, some tear that likely needs surgery to fix and in constant pain, cannot move and on tramadol the pain is so bad. GP says he can’t refer MRI anymore, and that’s needed to advise the procure to fix, , has to be done by physio now , new rules. So she has to wait for physio , end July, who will take one look and say I can’t do physio it’s far too painful you need MRI. And wait more weeks , months, maybe get the procedure done within a year if lucky. So I booked her MRI tomorrow for £199 results in 3 days. It’s at the same NHS hospital. Then book the consultant to do the procedure it’s gonna be 2-4K What’s the point of the nhs anymore ? It’s meant to provide free healthcare but it doesn’t it let’s poor people suffer with no healthcare while people with money don’t use it anymore " So in a nut shell you paid to jump the queue. Same as it a theme park the problem is when we all pay to jump the queue then there is no NHS sa such. I know why you have done it but it's almost the beginning of the end. Most MRI scaners are not NHS funded anyway as they cost to much. But good luck to you family member. You have done what I would do by the way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS has been gutted by privatisation by stealth. Just because something has the blue NHS logo on it, don’t assume that particular service is being provides by the public sector. Some people will point to an increase in NHS budget but that is actually hiding the reality of where that money is going (large chunks into the pockets of shareholders of private companies that are fleecing the NHS). So many aspects of the NHS are now outsourced and far from being more efficient, those services either come with a premium (higher cost taking money away from somewhere else) or lower standard of service to match the budget (while still allowing for profit to pay dividends). Can the NHS provide next day MRI for £199 with results within 3 days ? Why can’t they ? Because they don’t have infinite capacity and also have a staffing issue. But these private companies can and still make a profit from it apparently for shareholders so the actual cost must be very low. Isn’t it just they do it more efficiently, only e booking , cut through layers of unnecessary admin etc based on op example, they dont own (some) equipment. Likewise, how many train doctors, and employ geme before they get to consultancy level? They can also pick and choose clients and prices. Make private fully private with no selection, and I suspect it will look different. " Maybe but if nhs owned scanners are leased out to private companies in the hospital to offer next day scans for £199 while their own patients are waiting weeks or months, then this is not a capacity issue ,or anything ti do with government privatisation it’s an nhs management failure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS has been gutted by privatisation by stealth. Just because something has the blue NHS logo on it, don’t assume that particular service is being provides by the public sector. Some people will point to an increase in NHS budget but that is actually hiding the reality of where that money is going (large chunks into the pockets of shareholders of private companies that are fleecing the NHS). So many aspects of the NHS are now outsourced and far from being more efficient, those services either come with a premium (higher cost taking money away from somewhere else) or lower standard of service to match the budget (while still allowing for profit to pay dividends). Can the NHS provide next day MRI for £199 with results within 3 days ? Why can’t they ? Because they don’t have infinite capacity and also have a staffing issue. But these private companies can and still make a profit from it apparently for shareholders so the actual cost must be very low. Isn’t it just they do it more efficiently, only e booking , cut through layers of unnecessary admin etc based on op example, they dont own (some) equipment. Likewise, how many train doctors, and employ geme before they get to consultancy level? They can also pick and choose clients and prices. Make private fully private with no selection, and I suspect it will look different. Maybe but if nhs owned scanners are leased out to private companies in the hospital to offer next day scans for £199 while their own patients are waiting weeks or months, then this is not a capacity issue ,or anything ti do with government privatisation it’s an nhs management failure. " I don't mention capacity issues. Why are the NHS doing this ? I'd guess to make ends meet. Or to get a quicker roi on any equipment they have bought. My guess is if you looked at the cost of all the private treatments, and multiples this up by all the treatments the NHS do, budgets would be stretched. And that's before factoring in costs of equipment and service that private doesn't offer. Do I think the NHS acn be run better? Yes. So I think private shows how to run it better. Probably not as their business is very different to NHS even if it looks similar. Private cherry picks clients and services, and also relies on the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system." As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it." Absolutely! 'Free at the point of use' must remain sacrosanct. But why can't service provision be by private companies? So what if they make a profit provided they give good service and are efficient? That's how business works! Profitable companies bring employment and prosperity. In any case who do we think does the REAL smart stuff in medicine? The new drugs, the new scanners, the medical inserts? Yes, private companies. The NHS is clinging to an outdated model that is a bottomless pit for public cash. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it." you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work..." Tell me where I said I want healthcare to be totally free? You appear to have comprehension issues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work..." Perhaps they can also look at the rules when an employer provides private medical insurance. My employer has introduced private medical insurance that is free for staff. However the tax people will change our tax codes in a negative way and the free service is no longer free. I'm wondering if that should be scrapped as the more employers that do this the more it helps the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it. Absolutely! 'Free at the point of use' must remain sacrosanct. But why can't service provision be by private companies? So what if they make a profit provided they give good service and are efficient? That's how business works! Profitable companies bring employment and prosperity. In any case who do we think does the REAL smart stuff in medicine? The new drugs, the new scanners, the medical inserts? Yes, private companies. The NHS is clinging to an outdated model that is a bottomless pit for public cash." If the privatisation of utilities and railways has taught us anything, it is that as soon as you introduce the profit motive into essential services only one of two things can happen: 1. Costs increase to create a margin to generate profits for shareholders or 2. Quality/standard of service decreases to create a margin to generate profits for shareholders. Advocates of privatisation always try to cite “efficiency” but it is utter nonsense. Just look at train services which required huge state subsidies and ended up back in public ownership. Water companies failing to invest sufficiently to upgrade the waste water system resulting in increasing numbers of raw sewage discharges into our rivers and sea (and despite having paid massive dividends and exec pay) snd now looking to increase bills to push the cost of investment onto consumers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work..." if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it. Absolutely! 'Free at the point of use' must remain sacrosanct. But why can't service provision be by private companies? So what if they make a profit provided they give good service and are efficient? That's how business works! Profitable companies bring employment and prosperity. In any case who do we think does the REAL smart stuff in medicine? The new drugs, the new scanners, the medical inserts? Yes, private companies. The NHS is clinging to an outdated model that is a bottomless pit for public cash. If the privatisation of utilities and railways has taught us anything, it is that as soon as you introduce the profit motive into essential services only one of two things can happen: 1. Costs increase to create a margin to generate profits for shareholders or 2. Quality/standard of service decreases to create a margin to generate profits for shareholders. Advocates of privatisation always try to cite “efficiency” but it is utter nonsense. Just look at train services which required huge state subsidies and ended up back in public ownership. Water companies failing to invest sufficiently to upgrade the waste water system resulting in increasing numbers of raw sewage discharges into our rivers and sea (and despite having paid massive dividends and exec pay) snd now looking to increase bills to push the cost of investment onto consumers." This. 
Most people will miss the NHS when it's gone, insurance premiums go up, & they don't pay out after a certain threshold or offer minimum treatments for long term issues. Plus we can look forward to the non-NHS prices for medicines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what if they make a profit provided they give good service and are efficient? That's how business works! " Not any more. And not for a long time either. We are in end-stage Capitalism, where the motive is to maximise profit for the shareholders and the directors only. No one gives a shit about the quality of the product or the longevity of the business. It's make as much as you can while you can, and then get out. The easiest way to turn a profit is pare the service to the bone, reduce headcount, underinvest, and hoover up public sector cash. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out?" Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in" So the wealthy can afford heavy premiums snd excesses and get the best/mist expensive post stabilisation treatment (which they already can do) but the poor will get nothing because the NHS is gone and they cannot afford the premiums! Not to mention pre-existing or hereditary conditions! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in" So once I’m stabilised, can I refuse treatment and go home? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can anyone actually want private medical insurance instead of a properly functioning NHS? At the moment our taxes (it is supposed to be National Insurance but that isn’t actually ringfenced) fund the NHS. The service you get is comparable regardless of how much tax you have paid. " Compared to car insurance folk wouldn’t know what hit them . Younger charge a fortune as higher risk of accidents . Smokers or drinkers at least treble . Overweight above 30 BMI ten times or no cover . Reasonable folk normal price first problem with say heart attack price double 2nd problem quadruple 3rd sky’s the limit . Please folk the nhs is for everyone support those that will support it . ( my partner has been save 3 times by different nhs teams )  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in So once I’m stabilised, can I refuse treatment and go home?" You are going down a rabbit hole here…. Think about what I have written… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in So once I’m stabilised, can I refuse treatment and go home? You are going down a rabbit hole here…. Think about what I have written…" Why? You never think about what anyone else has written  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in So the wealthy can afford heavy premiums snd excesses and get the best/mist expensive post stabilisation treatment (which they already can do) but the poor will get nothing because the NHS is gone and they cannot afford the premiums! Not to mention pre-existing or hereditary conditions!" I thought you would get what I have suggested… I don’t want to spell this out but if you’re not getting it then I know there will be a lot more who don’t too.. Emergency = treatment, no change than what we have today Stabilised and ready to go home = job is done no change Stabilised and ready to go home but other things could be done to improve = option 1 pay the NHS to get the work done quicker, or option 2 stay in line for the work to be done and no change. The idea here is not privatisation but capitalisation of the services to improve the overall service to all, by those that can afford it. Don’t do it and it the money goes to the private sector and the NHS misses out o | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in So the wealthy can afford heavy premiums snd excesses and get the best/mist expensive post stabilisation treatment (which they already can do) but the poor will get nothing because the NHS is gone and they cannot afford the premiums! Not to mention pre-existing or hereditary conditions! I thought you would get what I have suggested… I don’t want to spell this out but if you’re not getting it then I know there will be a lot more who don’t too.. Emergency = treatment, no change than what we have today Stabilised and ready to go home = job is done no change Stabilised and ready to go home but other things could be done to improve = option 1 pay the NHS to get the work done quicker, or option 2 stay in line for the work to be done and no change. The idea here is not privatisation but capitalisation of the services to improve the overall service to all, by those that can afford it. Don’t do it and it the money goes to the private sector and the NHS misses out o" And that would be the thin end of the wedge. Not long after - do you want the ambulance to come straight to you for (insert figure here) or wait for the next available one? Privatising healthcare is risky business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what if they make a profit provided they give good service and are efficient? That's how business works! Not any more. And not for a long time either. We are in end-stage Capitalism, where the motive is to maximise profit for the shareholders and the directors only. No one gives a shit about the quality of the product or the longevity of the business. It's make as much as you can while you can, and then get out. The easiest way to turn a profit is pare the service to the bone, reduce headcount, underinvest, and hoover up public sector cash. " Oh Capitalism is ending? Who knew? I can't wait for Communism and the joy that will bring. The point about capitalism is that markets regulate profit. Yes, you get occasional abuses, as in everything. But most companies make modest profits (if at all), and then pay corporation tax, NI contributions, pensions and dividend taxes whilst providing employment to people. By the way, who do you think does R&D and trials of risky new drugs for the NHS? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in So the wealthy can afford heavy premiums snd excesses and get the best/mist expensive post stabilisation treatment (which they already can do) but the poor will get nothing because the NHS is gone and they cannot afford the premiums! Not to mention pre-existing or hereditary conditions! I thought you would get what I have suggested… I don’t want to spell this out but if you’re not getting it then I know there will be a lot more who don’t too.. Emergency = treatment, no change than what we have today Stabilised and ready to go home = job is done no change Stabilised and ready to go home but other things could be done to improve = option 1 pay the NHS to get the work done quicker, or option 2 stay in line for the work to be done and no change. The idea here is not privatisation but capitalisation of the services to improve the overall service to all, by those that can afford it. Don’t do it and it the money goes to the private sector and the NHS misses out o" How is what you have described different to what is already possible? Ah you pay the NHS to jump the queue! Hmmm I can see the headlines now...! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in So the wealthy can afford heavy premiums snd excesses and get the best/mist expensive post stabilisation treatment (which they already can do) but the poor will get nothing because the NHS is gone and they cannot afford the premiums! Not to mention pre-existing or hereditary conditions! I thought you would get what I have suggested… I don’t want to spell this out but if you’re not getting it then I know there will be a lot more who don’t too.. Emergency = treatment, no change than what we have today Stabilised and ready to go home = job is done no change Stabilised and ready to go home but other things could be done to improve = option 1 pay the NHS to get the work done quicker, or option 2 stay in line for the work to be done and no change. The idea here is not privatisation but capitalisation of the services to improve the overall service to all, by those that can afford it. Don’t do it and it the money goes to the private sector and the NHS misses out o How is what you have described different to what is already possible? Ah you pay the NHS to jump the queue! Hmmm I can see the headlines now...!" It would be different because everybody would be entitled to treatment for services run by private companies. The queues would be far less because private companies run business efficiently - a feat completely beyond the NHS in it's present form. This is how healthcare is provided around the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in So the wealthy can afford heavy premiums snd excesses and get the best/mist expensive post stabilisation treatment (which they already can do) but the poor will get nothing because the NHS is gone and they cannot afford the premiums! Not to mention pre-existing or hereditary conditions! I thought you would get what I have suggested… I don’t want to spell this out but if you’re not getting it then I know there will be a lot more who don’t too.. Emergency = treatment, no change than what we have today Stabilised and ready to go home = job is done no change Stabilised and ready to go home but other things could be done to improve = option 1 pay the NHS to get the work done quicker, or option 2 stay in line for the work to be done and no change. The idea here is not privatisation but capitalisation of the services to improve the overall service to all, by those that can afford it. Don’t do it and it the money goes to the private sector and the NHS misses out o How is what you have described different to what is already possible? Ah you pay the NHS to jump the queue! Hmmm I can see the headlines now...! It would be different because everybody would be entitled to treatment for services run by private companies. The queues would be far less because private companies run business efficiently - a feat completely beyond the NHS in it's present form. This is how healthcare is provided around the world." ‘Private companies run business efficiently’ is a sweeping statement. The railways receive more government subsidies now than they ever have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in" that's the model that I hear many people propose. Why not go further ? Let private show the way for emergencies too? If they want in, they should be all in. Otherwise they will take the profitable bits and let the NHS pickup the hard bits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in So the wealthy can afford heavy premiums snd excesses and get the best/mist expensive post stabilisation treatment (which they already can do) but the poor will get nothing because the NHS is gone and they cannot afford the premiums! Not to mention pre-existing or hereditary conditions! I thought you would get what I have suggested… I don’t want to spell this out but if you’re not getting it then I know there will be a lot more who don’t too.. Emergency = treatment, no change than what we have today Stabilised and ready to go home = job is done no change Stabilised and ready to go home but other things could be done to improve = option 1 pay the NHS to get the work done quicker, or option 2 stay in line for the work to be done and no change. The idea here is not privatisation but capitalisation of the services to improve the overall service to all, by those that can afford it. Don’t do it and it the money goes to the private sector and the NHS misses out o How is what you have described different to what is already possible? Ah you pay the NHS to jump the queue! Hmmm I can see the headlines now...! It would be different because everybody would be entitled to treatment for services run by private companies. The queues would be far less because private companies run business efficiently - a feat completely beyond the NHS in it's present form. This is how healthcare is provided around the world. ‘Private companies run business efficiently’ is a sweeping statement. The railways receive more government subsidies now than they ever have." Yes it's a sweeping statement, and there are always exceptions. But in the vast majority of cases, I believe it be true. I'm old enough to remember pre-Thatcher privatisations and waiting 6 months for BT to connect your government-issue grey telephone set. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. " What happens to those who can’t afford it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is a catastrophe, and far from being our 'national treasure' is a 'national disaster'. The sooner we face up to that harsh reality the sooner we might get a fit-for-purpose healthcare system. As long as it doesn’t end up as a USA style insurance model where people beg passers by not to call an ambulance because they can’t afford it.you want free movement across our borders and to make the UK a more welcoming place for economic migrants, and you want totally free healthcare too? The only way I can see the NHS surviving is to split it into a 2 tier service which is pretty much where it is heading as per the OP. It is a broken outdated model that was not designed to cope with the amount of people, the longevity of people or the technologies that allow better treatment and support. Allow a % drop in NI payments to people who will pay if they need to use the service. The drop in % will underpin some of the cost and keep it down. Those that do not want to take this option continue to pay full NI contributions and continue to receive treatment but no jumping the line. I'm not a betting man but I would place a large amount on responses to this suggestion being, "so only people that can afford it will get treatment, poor people will die and you are okay with that"... etc It is a fact that the NHS can't cope, it is a poor service at best and giving it the opportunity to tap into the money that would got to private healthcare is a way of improving the cashflow and therefore the treatments for all. It's how things work in the real world and the NHS needs to be given the ability to work...if we followed this approach would one be able to use ambulances and a&e. Or do you opt fully out? Emergencies are emergencies, you don’t opt in or out of those…. However, if treatment is needed post stabilisation that is when that model would kick in So the wealthy can afford heavy premiums snd excesses and get the best/mist expensive post stabilisation treatment (which they already can do) but the poor will get nothing because the NHS is gone and they cannot afford the premiums! Not to mention pre-existing or hereditary conditions! I thought you would get what I have suggested… I don’t want to spell this out but if you’re not getting it then I know there will be a lot more who don’t too.. Emergency = treatment, no change than what we have today Stabilised and ready to go home = job is done no change Stabilised and ready to go home but other things could be done to improve = option 1 pay the NHS to get the work done quicker, or option 2 stay in line for the work to be done and no change. The idea here is not privatisation but capitalisation of the services to improve the overall service to all, by those that can afford it. Don’t do it and it the money goes to the private sector and the NHS misses out o How is what you have described different to what is already possible? Ah you pay the NHS to jump the queue! Hmmm I can see the headlines now...! It would be different because everybody would be entitled to treatment for services run by private companies. The queues would be far less because private companies run business efficiently - a feat completely beyond the NHS in it's present form. This is how healthcare is provided around the world. ‘Private companies run business efficiently’ is a sweeping statement. The railways receive more government subsidies now than they ever have." And the private water companies are a disgrace | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it? "How does effect my family again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it? How does effect my family again? "We call that ‘I’m alright, Jack’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it? How does effect my family again?
We call that ‘I’m alright, Jack’"If you know Blu, she is about less governement interference and is quite happy to fend for herself. However, this is typical fab, that question has already been answered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it? "What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it? How does effect my family again? "What happens to the people who can’t afford it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?"They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it? How does effect my family again?
We call that ‘I’m alright, Jack’"Tbh, I wasn’t trying to be clever, I honestly don’t know how it works in the US | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested "The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay."interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services? "I believed you'd be billed in arrears. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an expert in US healthcare but Google can help sometimes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services? "What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency. A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge. If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier. That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS..."I guess the downside of the us model is one gets charged on their risk rating. NI is blind to that. Not everyone can shop around or demand more. I suspect better depends on a) who you are and b) how much you care about all members of society. After all, how big a jump is it from private only healthcare to private only pensions. Small state can be very small indeed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...I guess the downside of the us model is one gets charged on their risk rating. NI is blind to that. Not everyone can shop around or demand more.
I suspect better depends on a) who you are and b) how much you care about all members of society.
After all, how big a jump is it from private only healthcare to private only pensions. Small state can be very small indeed. "No they can't deny pre existing conditions. I get the NHS model but I prefer the better quality of care for my family. You purchase a policy that suits your needs. If I am out of work or him we both have long term and short term disability included. It's how you plan not one size fits all. It's all tax deductible at the end of the year. I just prefer the instant services. Not waiting months for a simple procedure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS..."Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. "I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All down to Tony Blair selling off bits of the NHS and then leasing them back to it - burdening the service with unnecessary expediture" Tony Blair resigned as PM in 2008 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that."Anecdote doesn’t equal data. You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None. In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All down to Tony Blair selling off bits of the NHS and then leasing them back to it - burdening the service with unnecessary expediture Tony Blair resigned as PM in 2008 "I'd call it a sharp exit. He could see his own shit getting perilously close to the fan and did one just in time. BTW. PFI were long term contracts that no future PM of any party could tear up. It was Blair who saddled the NHS with that shit and it isn't going away any time soon. Starmer or no Starmer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
"I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
"Data isn't everything if you plan correctly. If you plan correctly you are not a victim of that data now are you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
"“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
Data isn't everything if you plan correctly. If you plan correctly you are not a victim of that data now are you? "Approx 11% of people with medical insurance in the USA are still in medical debt, and about 41% of total adults have medical debt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
"That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k" Survey March 2022. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022."And to add to that 1/3 owe less than 1k. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022."Oh well clearly your source is right and mine is wrong. Obviously. Mine was from 4 days ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
Oh well clearly your source is right and mine is wrong. Obviously.
Mine was from 4 days ago.
"Who said I was right and you were wrong? I just stated I found conflicting information. Not really sure what this has to with the bankruptcy reply though? Wanna provide your source and I'll have a look at it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
Oh well clearly your source is right and mine is wrong. Obviously.
Mine was from 4 days ago.
Who said I was right and you were wrong? I just stated I found conflicting information. Not really sure what this has to with the bankruptcy reply though?
Wanna provide your source and I'll have a look at it?"KFF health news | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
Oh well clearly your source is right and mine is wrong. Obviously.
Mine was from 4 days ago.
Who said I was right and you were wrong? I just stated I found conflicting information. Not really sure what this has to with the bankruptcy reply though?
Wanna provide your source and I'll have a look at it?
KFF health news"KFF from 3 days ago says 1/4 owe at least 5k. 1/3 owe less than 1k. https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/diagnosis-debt-investigation-100-million-americans-hidden-medical-debt/ Not sure what you're reading. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
And to add to that 1/3 owe less than 1k."You probably are both quoting simikar data give the "nearly" and "close to" If 45pc (close to a half) are above 5k, then 55pc are under. That's nearer ish to 1/3 plus nearly a 1/4. I do realise we are missing the 2.5k to 5k, so there's a bit of a discrepancy, but I bet that probably comes from timing and what you measure as medical debt. You can probably both agree a decent chunk of people have a decent chunk of debt which every data set you use. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
And to add to that 1/3 owe less than 1k.
You probably are both quoting simikar data give the "nearly" and "close to"
If 45pc (close to a half) are above 5k, then 55pc are under. That's nearer ish to 1/3 plus nearly a 1/4.
I do realise we are missing the 2.5k to 5k, so there's a bit of a discrepancy, but I bet that probably comes from timing and what you measure as medical debt.
You can probably both agree a decent chunk of people have a decent chunk of debt which every data set you use.
"That’s the bottom line. Healthcare in the US, like much else, is hideously broken. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
And to add to that 1/3 owe less than 1k.
You probably are both quoting simikar data give the "nearly" and "close to"
If 45pc (close to a half) are above 5k, then 55pc are under. That's nearer ish to 1/3 plus nearly a 1/4.
I do realise we are missing the 2.5k to 5k, so there's a bit of a discrepancy, but I bet that probably comes from timing and what you measure as medical debt.
You can probably both agree a decent chunk of people have a decent chunk of debt which every data set you use.
"I'm now using his data set, well tbf, I was using KFF data too but it was last year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All down to Tony Blair selling off bits of the NHS and then leasing them back to it - burdening the service with unnecessary expediture Tony Blair resigned as PM in 2008
I'd call it a sharp exit.
He could see his own shit getting perilously close to the fan and did one just in time.
BTW. PFI were long term contracts that no future PM of any party could tear up.
It was Blair who saddled the NHS with that shit and it isn't going away any time soon. Starmer or no Starmer. "The NHS was working well in 2008 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whenever the subject of private healthcare comes up, why does everyone automatically assume that it has to be based on the American model? There are lots of other countries that have private or private/public partnerships that work very well. Of course the NHS is better than the US system but compared to say Germany (among others) it's a fucking disaster. The sooner it loses its sacred cow status and politicians stop using it as a political football, then maybe just maybe, a sensible debate will start. As it is, it doesn't work and just chucking extra money at it (as successive governments of all colours have been doing for decades) will solve nothing. " i agree that the model needs to be re-evaluated. I'd argue the idea of "free at point of use" is the sacred cow rather than the NHS in its exact form. Lots of options on preventive care, to better at home care, to tax refunds for non use to look at IMO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
And to add to that 1/3 owe less than 1k.
You probably are both quoting simikar data give the "nearly" and "close to"
If 45pc (close to a half) are above 5k, then 55pc are under. That's nearer ish to 1/3 plus nearly a 1/4.
I do realise we are missing the 2.5k to 5k, so there's a bit of a discrepancy, but I bet that probably comes from timing and what you measure as medical debt.
You can probably both agree a decent chunk of people have a decent chunk of debt which every data set you use.
That’s the bottom line. Healthcare in the US, like much else, is hideously broken. "You being a social democrat probably doesn't help you when talking about private healthcare, you are going to be consistently in conflict. Those of us who think from more own independence framework will see the benefits of the US model. When we look at the condition and value of our health service I don't think it would hold up to the services in the US, and we could learn from that. I expect you having a view that much of the "US hideously broken", as you do, means there are no lessons you think we could learn from, a closed door so to speak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My elderly family member paid tax her whole life, has a knee injury, some tear that likely needs surgery to fix and in constant pain, cannot move and on tramadol the pain is so bad. GP says he can’t refer MRI anymore, and that’s needed to advise the procure to fix, , has to be done by physio now , new rules. So she has to wait for physio , end July, who will take one look and say I can’t do physio it’s far too painful you need MRI. And wait more weeks , months, maybe get the procedure done within a year if lucky. So I booked her MRI tomorrow for £199 results in 3 days. It’s at the same NHS hospital. Then book the consultant to do the procedure it’s gonna be 2-4K What’s the point of the nhs anymore ? It’s meant to provide free healthcare but it doesn’t it let’s poor people suffer with no healthcare while people with money don’t use it anymore " I had the same problem with my knee just recently. And its still ongoing I tore through media ligament. I was told to let it rest fkor 2 months because of pain Then it didn't go. I was given 10 weeks of rehab exercises from a physio. I then went for an x Ray. I then given tbe all clear and had to chase up about why they closed my case. I then was told I had to see a physio again. I was then told it was my core that was causing the pain a d told I needed to do 8 weeks of exercises (having done boxing from my teens and having played rugby football and aussie rules. Ia soured them my core wasn't the problem) They said they had exhausted their options. I said either I can go for mri/ exploratory surgery . Or that if they're efused to send me, I would pay privately and sue them for mal.practice when so.ething came back. To.my absolute astoundment not)I had torn my medial ligament and also( there's a little air pocket below the knee I had punctured which also helped reduce pain when running. This all took from October 21 until 1st June. I now await surgery...and have been told its 18 months wait | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary." And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And fwiw. It has nothing to do with austerity. Just physios and GPS who prefer to treat a symptom not a cause. I have other issues I am currently dealing with dating back to 2014 simply through negligence of the NHS. The NHS has had its biggest ever spending increases and budgets. But it's nothing but Incompetence to suggest I need to improve my core when I've torn my medial ligament." Who has been in charge of the English NHS since 2010 ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
And to add to that 1/3 owe less than 1k.
You probably are both quoting simikar data give the "nearly" and "close to"
If 45pc (close to a half) are above 5k, then 55pc are under. That's nearer ish to 1/3 plus nearly a 1/4.
I do realise we are missing the 2.5k to 5k, so there's a bit of a discrepancy, but I bet that probably comes from timing and what you measure as medical debt.
You can probably both agree a decent chunk of people have a decent chunk of debt which every data set you use.
That’s the bottom line. Healthcare in the US, like much else, is hideously broken.
You being a social democrat probably doesn't help you when talking about private healthcare, you are going to be consistently in conflict.
Those of us who think from more own independence framework will see the benefits of the US model.
When we look at the condition and value of our health service I don't think it would hold up to the services in the US, and we could learn from that.
I expect you having a view that much of the "US hideously broken", as you do, means there are no lessons you think we could learn from, a closed door so to speak."I believe we could learn much from the French healthcare model. Not from the American one. I don’t wish to follow the most expensive healthcare system in the world, which routinely places people into masses of debt through no fault of their own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. " Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And fwiw. It has nothing to do with austerity. Just physios and GPS who prefer to treat a symptom not a cause. I have other issues I am currently dealing with dating back to 2014 simply through negligence of the NHS. The NHS has had its biggest ever spending increases and budgets. But it's nothing but Incompetence to suggest I need to improve my core when I've torn my medial ligament. Who has been in charge of the English NHS since 2010 ? "Clearly its not just MPs who use the NHS as a political football  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. " And again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again "Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And fwiw. It has nothing to do with austerity. Just physios and GPS who prefer to treat a symptom not a cause. I have other issues I am currently dealing with dating back to 2014 simply through negligence of the NHS. The NHS has had its biggest ever spending increases and budgets. But it's nothing but Incompetence to suggest I need to improve my core when I've torn my medial ligament. Who has been in charge of the English NHS since 2010 ? "I wouldnt blame any govenrment for an incompetent NHS. I lived in Wales under NHS for labour. Its worse. It'd just ignorance and incompetence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence."It is Tony Blair’s fault, apparently | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And fwiw. It has nothing to do with austerity. Just physios and GPS who prefer to treat a symptom not a cause. I have other issues I am currently dealing with dating back to 2014 simply through negligence of the NHS. The NHS has had its biggest ever spending increases and budgets. But it's nothing but Incompetence to suggest I need to improve my core when I've torn my medial ligament. Who has been in charge of the English NHS since 2010 ?
I wouldnt blame any govenrment for an incompetent NHS.
I lived in Wales under NHS for labour. Its worse. It'd just ignorance and incompetence.
"It was working well in 2010 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence."It's a political football as you are both proving. What happened to answering your overstated figures from US debt figures? I didn't go unnoticed  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And fwiw. It has nothing to do with austerity. Just physios and GPS who prefer to treat a symptom not a cause. I have other issues I am currently dealing with dating back to 2014 simply through negligence of the NHS. The NHS has had its biggest ever spending increases and budgets. But it's nothing but Incompetence to suggest I need to improve my core when I've torn my medial ligament. Who has been in charge of the English NHS since 2010 ?
I wouldnt blame any govenrment for an incompetent NHS.
I lived in Wales under NHS for labour. Its worse. It'd just ignorance and incompetence.
"Or Scotland under SNP? The fact is the NHS is fucked, its got nothing to do with a tie colour but lefties won't have you think that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
And to add to that 1/3 owe less than 1k.
You probably are both quoting simikar data give the "nearly" and "close to"
If 45pc (close to a half) are above 5k, then 55pc are under. That's nearer ish to 1/3 plus nearly a 1/4.
I do realise we are missing the 2.5k to 5k, so there's a bit of a discrepancy, but I bet that probably comes from timing and what you measure as medical debt.
You can probably both agree a decent chunk of people have a decent chunk of debt which every data set you use.
That’s the bottom line. Healthcare in the US, like much else, is hideously broken.
You being a social democrat probably doesn't help you when talking about private healthcare, you are going to be consistently in conflict.
Those of us who think from more own independence framework will see the benefits of the US model.
When we look at the condition and value of our health service I don't think it would hold up to the services in the US, and we could learn from that.
I expect you having a view that much of the "US hideously broken", as you do, means there are no lessons you think we could learn from, a closed door so to speak.
I believe we could learn much from the French healthcare model. Not from the American one. I don’t wish to follow the most expensive healthcare system in the world, which routinely places people into masses of debt through no fault of their own.
"The French health service, the postcode lottery of health, having to pay up front, the need to pay for extra services above basic making it 2 tier and still needing to take insurance. Sounds perfect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence.
It's a political football as you are both proving.
What happened to answering your overstated figures from US debt figures? I didn't go unnoticed "I copied and pasted from a piece that was easily found online. Not sure what more you want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
And to add to that 1/3 owe less than 1k.
You probably are both quoting simikar data give the "nearly" and "close to"
If 45pc (close to a half) are above 5k, then 55pc are under. That's nearer ish to 1/3 plus nearly a 1/4.
I do realise we are missing the 2.5k to 5k, so there's a bit of a discrepancy, but I bet that probably comes from timing and what you measure as medical debt.
You can probably both agree a decent chunk of people have a decent chunk of debt which every data set you use.
That’s the bottom line. Healthcare in the US, like much else, is hideously broken.
You being a social democrat probably doesn't help you when talking about private healthcare, you are going to be consistently in conflict.
Those of us who think from more own independence framework will see the benefits of the US model.
When we look at the condition and value of our health service I don't think it would hold up to the services in the US, and we could learn from that.
I expect you having a view that much of the "US hideously broken", as you do, means there are no lessons you think we could learn from, a closed door so to speak.
I believe we could learn much from the French healthcare model. Not from the American one. I don’t wish to follow the most expensive healthcare system in the world, which routinely places people into masses of debt through no fault of their own.
The French health service, the postcode lottery of health, having to pay up front, the need to pay for extra services above basic making it 2 tier and still needing to take insurance.
Sounds perfect"Policies generally obtained through employment, free for low income families, one of the most comprehensive and respected healthcare services in the world. Sounds far better than the US system, does it not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence.
It's a political football as you are both proving.
What happened to answering your overstated figures from US debt figures? I didn't go unnoticed
I copied and pasted from a piece that was easily
found online. Not sure what more you want."How about a retraction of your over-inflated figures that were used to try make some sort of point. That would be a great start | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS was working well in 2010 "Are you sure?? Maybe the Guardian, you know, that famous Tory paper have it wrong. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/feb/17/health.nhs1 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence.
It's a political football as you are both proving.
What happened to answering your overstated figures from US debt figures? I didn't go unnoticed
I copied and pasted from a piece that was easily
found online. Not sure what more you want.
How about a retraction of your over-inflated figures that were used to try make some sort of point. That would be a great start
"Why am I going to retract polling figures from an article that presumably has better knowledge of the topic than I? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. " My own anecdotal evidence from everything I've had an issue. Football. - knocked myself out at 12 playing football waited for an assessment for 12 hours.never got seen had to leave. As told wouldn't get seen for another 12 hours. NHS in Wales around 2001. Pushed into river 2003 in hospital for 6 hours. Stiched up a nasty gash on leg sent home with bo anti bionics. Leg was infected and I ran a temp for 6 days. Lucking Nigerian neighbours were drs and spotted the error they check my record and Dr was written up for I competence. NHS in Wales Car crash 2007. Metal through shin/ under part of knee. Hospital 4 days. Accident tally left stitches inside knee which weren't degradable. Only when I co planned of pain they went back in and removed them to relieve the tension 2007 age 20 Torn tendont in neck 2014. This is the ongoing issue I'll be suing for 10 gp and Dr visits told to pay for own physio, rest of life on pain medication told can't be operated on . Private Dr said its a tendon issue in neck I'd ruptured can be fixed. Dpnt jave to spend £5 a week on pain killers and £40 every 2 weeks on a chiro. Private dr said absolutely gross misconduct on nhs behalf. All in over my life about £6k Knee problem as above Prostate. June 21 to present. 8 rounds of antibiotics across 2 years. 4 sti tests because drs couldn't believe a pain in my urethra and balls wasn't an sti. All in probably £200 for test and anti biotics. Turns out going private it is likely my prostate. Which has enlarged ( they should have checked after 3rd round antibiotics not ignore even past 10th . The NHS has been useless my entire life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence.
It's a political football as you are both proving.
What happened to answering your overstated figures from US debt figures? I didn't go unnoticed
I copied and pasted from a piece that was easily
found online. Not sure what more you want.
How about a retraction of your over-inflated figures that were used to try make some sort of point. That would be a great start
Why am I going to retract polling figures from an article that presumably has better knowledge of the topic than I?
"
The same article I posted a link to, that doesn't have your figures. No worries, everyone can see it.
You know, a decent person would just say 'I was mistaken' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
And to add to that 1/3 owe less than 1k.
You probably are both quoting simikar data give the "nearly" and "close to"
If 45pc (close to a half) are above 5k, then 55pc are under. That's nearer ish to 1/3 plus nearly a 1/4.
I do realise we are missing the 2.5k to 5k, so there's a bit of a discrepancy, but I bet that probably comes from timing and what you measure as medical debt.
You can probably both agree a decent chunk of people have a decent chunk of debt which every data set you use.
That’s the bottom line. Healthcare in the US, like much else, is hideously broken.
You being a social democrat probably doesn't help you when talking about private healthcare, you are going to be consistently in conflict.
Those of us who think from more own independence framework will see the benefits of the US model.
When we look at the condition and value of our health service I don't think it would hold up to the services in the US, and we could learn from that.
I expect you having a view that much of the "US hideously broken", as you do, means there are no lessons you think we could learn from, a closed door so to speak.
I believe we could learn much from the French healthcare model. Not from the American one. I don’t wish to follow the most expensive healthcare system in the world, which routinely places people into masses of debt through no fault of their own.
The French health service, the postcode lottery of health, having to pay up front, the need to pay for extra services above basic making it 2 tier and still needing to take insurance.
Sounds perfect
Policies generally obtained through employment, free for low income families, one of the most comprehensive and respected healthcare services in the world.
Sounds far better than the US system, does it not? "I said your hands are tied on this subject, we all have a hill to die on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. My own anecdotal evidence from everything I've had an issue. Football. - knocked myself out at 12 playing football waited for an assessment for 12 hours.never got seen had to leave. As told wouldn't get seen for another 12 hours. NHS in Wales around 2001. Pushed into river 2003 in hospital for 6 hours. Stiched up a nasty gash on leg sent home with bo anti bionics. Leg was infected and I ran a temp for 6 days. Lucking Nigerian neighbours were drs and spotted the error they check my record and Dr was written up for I competence. NHS in Wales Car crash 2007. Metal through shin/ under part of knee. Hospital 4 days. Accident tally left stitches inside knee which weren't degradable. Only when I co planned of pain they went back in and removed them to relieve the tension 2007 age 20 Torn tendont in neck 2014. This is the ongoing issue I'll be suing for 10 gp and Dr visits told to pay for own physio, rest of life on pain medication told can't be operated on . Private Dr said its a tendon issue in neck I'd ruptured can be fixed. Dpnt jave to spend £5 a week on pain killers and £40 every 2 weeks on a chiro. Private dr said absolutely gross misconduct on nhs behalf. All in over my life about £6k Knee problem as above Prostate. June 21 to present. 8 rounds of antibiotics across 2 years. 4 sti tests because drs couldn't believe a pain in my urethra and balls wasn't an sti. All in probably £200 for test and anti biotics. Turns out going private it is likely my prostate. Which has enlarged ( they should have checked after 3rd round antibiotics not ignore even past 10th . The NHS has been useless my entire life. " ‘My experience of the NHS has been useless my entire life’ Just a wee correction, there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence.
It's a political football as you are both proving.
What happened to answering your overstated figures from US debt figures? I didn't go unnoticed
I copied and pasted from a piece that was easily
found online. Not sure what more you want.
How about a retraction of your over-inflated figures that were used to try make some sort of point. That would be a great start
Why am I going to retract polling figures from an article that presumably has better knowledge of the topic than I?
The same article I posted a link to, that doesn't have your figures. No worries, everyone can see it.
You know, a decent person would just say 'I was mistaken'"I literally copied and pasted the quote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I prefer my private insurance over any NHS model. Never have I had severe wait times for anything. You choose the policy that best suits my needs. What happens to those who can’t afford it?
What happens to people here who need treatment from the NHS and are not getting it?
They have to wait, if I have a heart attack in the USA and can’t pay for private healthcare , what happens? , genuinely interested
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law passed in 1986, requires anyone coming to a hospital emergency room to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. interesting. Does that extend to ambulance services?
What do you mean extend to ambulance services? If an ambulance is needed to take someone to hospital they will be used in an emergency.
A charge might be applied, insurance should cover, if a person hasn't got insurance they can pay the bill off in instalments or the hospital can choose not to apply the charge.
If you think about the US model, isn't it a better version of our NHS? Instead of paying NI they pay insurance and as customers they can demand better services or find another supplier.
That sounds good to me, we are made to feel grateful that we have the NHS when we are actually paying for a really poor service, and if we decide to go elsewhere we still need to pay for the NHS...
Have you seen medical bills from the states? People have been bankrupted because they had the audacity to fall ill. I don't have any husband had 3 stents put in. It's how you plan.Uts just hard for you to fathom that.
Anecdote doesn’t equal data.
You know how many people are bankrupted following medical procedures in the U.K? None.
In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt
I don't know how easy it is to declare bankruptcy in America but I'd hazard a guess that bankruptcy doesn't really tell a clear picture here, I know it certainly wouldn't in the UK.
“About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more”
That's weird because I found because I found "nearly a quarter of people with healthcare debt owe between 1-2.5k"
Survey March 2022.
And to add to that 1/3 owe less than 1k.
You probably are both quoting simikar data give the "nearly" and "close to"
If 45pc (close to a half) are above 5k, then 55pc are under. That's nearer ish to 1/3 plus nearly a 1/4.
I do realise we are missing the 2.5k to 5k, so there's a bit of a discrepancy, but I bet that probably comes from timing and what you measure as medical debt.
You can probably both agree a decent chunk of people have a decent chunk of debt which every data set you use.
That’s the bottom line. Healthcare in the US, like much else, is hideously broken.
You being a social democrat probably doesn't help you when talking about private healthcare, you are going to be consistently in conflict.
Those of us who think from more own independence framework will see the benefits of the US model.
When we look at the condition and value of our health service I don't think it would hold up to the services in the US, and we could learn from that.
I expect you having a view that much of the "US hideously broken", as you do, means there are no lessons you think we could learn from, a closed door so to speak.
I believe we could learn much from the French healthcare model. Not from the American one. I don’t wish to follow the most expensive healthcare system in the world, which routinely places people into masses of debt through no fault of their own.
The French health service, the postcode lottery of health, having to pay up front, the need to pay for extra services above basic making it 2 tier and still needing to take insurance.
Sounds perfect
Policies generally obtained through employment, free for low income families, one of the most comprehensive and respected healthcare services in the world.
Sounds far better than the US system, does it not?
I said your hands are tied on this subject, we all have a hill to die on."At least if you die on that hill in the US you’d not have to pay the associated costs. I wonder if they’d send the bill to your family? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence.
It's a political football as you are both proving.
What happened to answering your overstated figures from US debt figures? I didn't go unnoticed
I copied and pasted from a piece that was easily
found online. Not sure what more you want.
How about a retraction of your over-inflated figures that were used to try make some sort of point. That would be a great start
Why am I going to retract polling figures from an article that presumably has better knowledge of the topic than I?
The same article I posted a link to, that doesn't have your figures. No worries, everyone can see it.
You know, a decent person would just say 'I was mistaken'
I literally copied and pasted the quote."Of course you did. Yet, you refuse to show the link. As I said mate, no worries, everyone can see it for themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence.
It's a political football as you are both proving.
What happened to answering your overstated figures from US debt figures? I didn't go unnoticed
I copied and pasted from a piece that was easily
found online. Not sure what more you want.
How about a retraction of your over-inflated figures that were used to try make some sort of point. That would be a great start
Why am I going to retract polling figures from an article that presumably has better knowledge of the topic than I?
The same article I posted a link to, that doesn't have your figures. No worries, everyone can see it.
You know, a decent person would just say 'I was mistaken'"I take it another made up number? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence.
It's a political football as you are both proving.
What happened to answering your overstated figures from US debt figures? I didn't go unnoticed
I copied and pasted from a piece that was easily
found online. Not sure what more you want.
How about a retraction of your over-inflated figures that were used to try make some sort of point. That would be a great start
Why am I going to retract polling figures from an article that presumably has better knowledge of the topic than I?
The same article I posted a link to, that doesn't have your figures. No worries, everyone can see it.
You know, a decent person would just say 'I was mistaken'
I literally copied and pasted the quote.
Of course you did. Yet, you refuse to show the link. As I said mate, no worries, everyone can see it for themselves."Oh look. The article that I copied and pasted the quote from: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/international-rights-group-calls-out-us-allowing-hospitals-push-millions-debt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence.
It's a political football as you are both proving.
What happened to answering your overstated figures from US debt figures? I didn't go unnoticed
I copied and pasted from a piece that was easily
found online. Not sure what more you want.
How about a retraction of your over-inflated figures that were used to try make some sort of point. That would be a great start
Why am I going to retract polling figures from an article that presumably has better knowledge of the topic than I?
The same article I posted a link to, that doesn't have your figures. No worries, everyone can see it.
You know, a decent person would just say 'I was mistaken'
I take it another made up number?"Nah, quoted from an article but not believed - so accused of lying. Sort of thing you do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. " I live here and have private healthcare and I know of plenty of people that plan accordingly. You are not looking at that picture. You are looking at your own assumptions. So no matter what anyone tells you. Even though my experiences with mine has some merit. You will just spout your own BS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. And again
Just pointing out facts
The tories have had 13 years in charge, and the NHS has slumped in that time.
I dunno, maybe it’s coincidence.
It's a political football as you are both proving.
What happened to answering your overstated figures from US debt figures? I didn't go unnoticed
I copied and pasted from a piece that was easily
found online. Not sure what more you want.
How about a retraction of your over-inflated figures that were used to try make some sort of point. That would be a great start
Why am I going to retract polling figures from an article that presumably has better knowledge of the topic than I?
The same article I posted a link to, that doesn't have your figures. No worries, everyone can see it.
You know, a decent person would just say 'I was mistaken'
I literally copied and pasted the quote.
Of course you did. Yet, you refuse to show the link. As I said mate, no worries, everyone can see it for themselves.
Oh look. The article that I copied and pasted the quote from:
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/international-rights-group-calls-out-us-allowing-hospitals-push-millions-debt"Could've done that in the first place, would've saved all this shit. Although you said you quoted data from KFF, not Fierce, you should check those figures before posting really. That article is clearly talking bollocks. How do I know this? Because I went to the source and got the correct figures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. " Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. I live here and have private healthcare and I know of plenty of people that plan accordingly. You are not looking at that picture. You are looking at your own assumptions. So no matter what anyone tells you. Even though my experiences with mine has some merit. You will just spout your own BS." An American giving a real life account clearly matters less than the opinion of someone who doesn't even know how to check a source. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source." The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” " If the quote i have posted in this thread is the one. The article doesn't say what u said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. I live here and have private healthcare and I know of plenty of people that plan accordingly. You are not looking at that picture. You are looking at your own assumptions. So no matter what anyone tells you. Even though my experiences with mine has some merit. You will just spout your own BS." I’m glad you have private healthcare. I hope you never become one of the 11% with health insurance who end up in medical debt. I suspect they also thought they had planned adequately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” " No, the correct response is. 'Don't say you're using certain data when that data is easily checked'. You weren't using KFF data, you took an article as gospel and ran with it, the problem is the article was lying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” No, the correct response is. 'Don't say you're using certain data when that data is easily checked'. You weren't using KFF data, you took an article as gospel and ran with it, the problem is the article was lying." You’re throwing a lot of accusations of lying around this evening, ain’t ya? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” No, the correct response is. 'Don't say you're using certain data when that data is easily checked'. You weren't using KFF data, you took an article as gospel and ran with it, the problem is the article was lying. You’re throwing a lot of accusations of lying around this evening, ain’t ya? "Feel free to debunk them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” If the quote i have posted in this thread is the one. The article doesn't say what u said" I’ve quoted from a few pieces in this lengthy exchange. Google is your friend, chap. Try something like “66% bankruptcies medical” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” No, the correct response is. 'Don't say you're using certain data when that data is easily checked'. You weren't using KFF data, you took an article as gospel and ran with it, the problem is the article was lying. You’re throwing a lot of accusations of lying around this evening, ain’t ya?
Feel free to debunk them."That’s not the fabs way. Apparently you just call anyone you disagree with a liar, Morley. Sorry. Fast. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” No, the correct response is. 'Don't say you're using certain data when that data is easily checked'. You weren't using KFF data, you took an article as gospel and ran with it, the problem is the article was lying. You’re throwing a lot of accusations of lying around this evening, ain’t ya?
Feel free to debunk them.
That’s not the fabs way. Apparently you just call anyone you disagree with a liar, Morley. Sorry. Fast. "Let's break this down: Did you claim to use KFF data? Did you initially refuse a link to data? Did you find an article and believe it? Was the article over-inflating the figures? I think we can answer YES to all of those..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” If the quote i have posted in this thread is the one. The article doesn't say what u said I’ve quoted from a few pieces in this lengthy exchange. Google is your friend, chap. Try something like “66% bankruptcies medical”" As per your apparent direct quote. I can't see where in the article it says 66% of bankruptcies are medical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” If the quote i have posted in this thread is the one. The article doesn't say what u said I’ve quoted from a few pieces in this lengthy exchange. Google is your friend, chap. Try something like “66% bankruptcies medical”" 66% of bankruptcies linked to medical ISSUES, to include long term illness, why are you still lying?? That one is a real accusation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” If the quote i have posted in this thread is the one. The article doesn't say what u said I’ve quoted from a few pieces in this lengthy exchange. Google is your friend, chap. Try something like “66% bankruptcies medical” 66% of bankruptcies linked to medical ISSUES, to include long term illness, why are you still lying?? That one is a real accusation." Poke your accusation up your arse: https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again. Don’t jump in and accuse people of lying just because you haven’t used google correctly. It makes you look like a bellend, MoreFast." The very very first paragraph says 17% 
Do I need to read further? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” If the quote i have posted in this thread is the one. The article doesn't say what u said I’ve quoted from a few pieces in this lengthy exchange. Google is your friend, chap. Try something like “66% bankruptcies medical” 66% of bankruptcies linked to medical ISSUES, to include long term illness, why are you still lying?? That one is a real accusation. Poke your accusation up your arse: https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ " Can we get the actual data? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again. Don’t jump in and accuse people of lying just because you haven’t used google correctly. It makes you look like a bellend, MoreFast. The very very first paragraph says 17%
Do I need to read further?"If you want to see the quote that you accused me of lying over, yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s becoming common on here to throw around accusations of lying. That reveals more about the accusers than anything. Quote your source and you won't be accused. However, I made an accusation of you over-inflating figures, I stand by that. Your figures were over-inflated. The lesson here is to check your source. The correct response is: “I’m sorry for accusing you of lying, I failed to find the piece you quoted and jumped to a conclusion” If the quote i have posted in this thread is the one. The article doesn't say what u said I’ve quoted from a few pieces in this lengthy exchange. Google is your friend, chap. Try something like “66% bankruptcies medical” 66% of bankruptcies linked to medical ISSUES, to include long term illness, why are you still lying?? That one is a real accusation. Poke your accusation up your arse: https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ Can we get the actual data? " You said I lied about the quote. I didn’t. You want to Google data, go right ahead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again. Don’t jump in and accuse people of lying just because you haven’t used google correctly. It makes you look like a bellend, MoreFast. The very very first paragraph says 17%
Do I need to read further?
If you want to see the quote that you accused me of lying over, yes.
"You should check your sources more closely: A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a study of 910 families of what....60 million couples possibly with children. So 0.000015 % of the population extrapolated out. Amd the 66.5% comes from problems linked to medical. Which can range from not being able to work? To having a nervous breakdown? " Polling is traditionally weighted, is it not? Glad we’ve moved away from calling people liars though. That’s growth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again. Don’t jump in and accuse people of lying just because you haven’t used google correctly. It makes you look like a bellend, MoreFast. The very very first paragraph says 17%
Do I need to read further?
If you want to see the quote that you accused me of lying over, yes.
You should check your sources more closely:
A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found."So we’re agreed that the quote I used was in that piece? So I’m not a liar? That’s two apologies I’m owed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a study of 910 families of what....60 million couples possibly with children. So 0.000015 % of the population extrapolated out. Amd the 66.5% comes from problems linked to medical. Which can range from not being able to work? To having a nervous breakdown? Polling is traditionally weighted, is it not? Glad we’ve moved away from calling people liars though. That’s growth. " Nah we just tell them to drove things up their arse and call them bellends, so much more civil | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again. Don’t jump in and accuse people of lying just because you haven’t used google correctly. It makes you look like a bellend, MoreFast. The very very first paragraph says 17%
Do I need to read further?
If you want to see the quote that you accused me of lying over, yes.
You should check your sources more closely:
A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found.
So we’re agreed that the quote I used was in that piece?
So I’m not a liar? That’s two apologies I’m owed"Listen mate, if you're wrong and using something that is false to prove a point, I'm gonna call you out. Its quite simple. If I was wrong I'd retract, seeing as I'm not, no I won't be apologising. I genuinely can't believe you're asking for apologies after your behaviour here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again. Don’t jump in and accuse people of lying just because you haven’t used google correctly. It makes you look like a bellend, MoreFast. The very very first paragraph says 17%
Do I need to read further?
If you want to see the quote that you accused me of lying over, yes.
You should check your sources more closely:
A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found.
So we’re agreed that the quote I used was in that piece?
So I’m not a liar? That’s two apologies I’m owed
Listen mate, if you're wrong and using something that is false to prove a point, I'm gonna call you out. Its quite simple. If I was wrong I'd retract, seeing as I'm not, no I won't be apologising.
I genuinely can't believe you're asking for apologies after your behaviour here "After I quoted from articles, and was accused of making quotes up? No, of course I wouldn’t expect an apology from you. That would require a shred of decency | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again. Don’t jump in and accuse people of lying just because you haven’t used google correctly. It makes you look like a bellend, MoreFast. The very very first paragraph says 17%
Do I need to read further?
If you want to see the quote that you accused me of lying over, yes.
You should check your sources more closely:
A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found.
So we’re agreed that the quote I used was in that piece?
So I’m not a liar? That’s two apologies I’m owed
Listen mate, if you're wrong and using something that is false to prove a point, I'm gonna call you out. Its quite simple. If I was wrong I'd retract, seeing as I'm not, no I won't be apologising.
I genuinely can't believe you're asking for apologies after your behaviour here
After I quoted from articles, and was accused of making quotes up?
No, of course I wouldn’t expect an apology from you. That would require a shred of decency "
You previously called me a c*nt, today told me to show something up my arse and then called me a bellend because you've been caught out.
And you talk about decency? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again. Don’t jump in and accuse people of lying just because you haven’t used google correctly. It makes you look like a bellend, MoreFast. The very very first paragraph says 17%
Do I need to read further?
If you want to see the quote that you accused me of lying over, yes.
You should check your sources more closely:
A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found.
So we’re agreed that the quote I used was in that piece?
So I’m not a liar? That’s two apologies I’m owed
Listen mate, if you're wrong and using something that is false to prove a point, I'm gonna call you out. Its quite simple. If I was wrong I'd retract, seeing as I'm not, no I won't be apologising.
I genuinely can't believe you're asking for apologies after your behaviour here
After I quoted from articles, and was accused of making quotes up?
No, of course I wouldn’t expect an apology from you. That would require a shred of decency "How is this thread working out for you? It’s like I’ve got a social democratic crystal ball or something | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again. Don’t jump in and accuse people of lying just because you haven’t used google correctly. It makes you look like a bellend, MoreFast. The very very first paragraph says 17%
Do I need to read further?
If you want to see the quote that you accused me of lying over, yes.
You should check your sources more closely:
A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found.
So we’re agreed that the quote I used was in that piece?
So I’m not a liar? That’s two apologies I’m owed
Listen mate, if you're wrong and using something that is false to prove a point, I'm gonna call you out. Its quite simple. If I was wrong I'd retract, seeing as I'm not, no I won't be apologising.
I genuinely can't believe you're asking for apologies after your behaviour here
After I quoted from articles, and was accused of making quotes up?
No, of course I wouldn’t expect an apology from you. That would require a shred of decency
How is this thread working out for you? It’s like I’ve got a social democratic crystal ball or something "It’s working out well. We’ve demonstrated that the US healthcare system is laughable, and we should look to France (or perhaps Germany) if we really want a healthcare system that’s fit for purpose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a study of 910 families of what....60 million couples possibly with children. So 0.000015 % of the population extrapolated out. Amd the 66.5% comes from problems linked to medical. Which can range from not being able to work? To having a nervous breakdown? Polling is traditionally weighted, is it not? Glad we’ve moved away from calling people liars though. That’s growth. " No you should have said its estimated 66.5% are tied to medical problems froma poll of 1000 Not "In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt" Which was a lie. You lied. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a study of 910 families of what....60 million couples possibly with children. So 0.000015 % of the population extrapolated out. Amd the 66.5% comes from problems linked to medical. Which can range from not being able to work? To having a nervous breakdown? Polling is traditionally weighted, is it not? Glad we’ve moved away from calling people liars though. That’s growth. No you should have said its estimated 66.5% are tied to medical problems froma poll of 1000 Not "In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt" Which was a lie. You lied." I took a quote that you didn’t like from an article online. That quote was “66.5% of bankruptcies are caused directly by medical expenses, making it the leading cause for bankruptcy” I know you like to call people liars (but don’t like being called one yourself) but the quite is in the article - https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ So call me what you like. The proof of what I quoted is right there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again. Don’t jump in and accuse people of lying just because you haven’t used google correctly. It makes you look like a bellend, MoreFast. The very very first paragraph says 17%
Do I need to read further?
If you want to see the quote that you accused me of lying over, yes.
You should check your sources more closely:
A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found.
So we’re agreed that the quote I used was in that piece?
So I’m not a liar? That’s two apologies I’m owed
Listen mate, if you're wrong and using something that is false to prove a point, I'm gonna call you out. Its quite simple. If I was wrong I'd retract, seeing as I'm not, no I won't be apologising.
I genuinely can't believe you're asking for apologies after your behaviour here
After I quoted from articles, and was accused of making quotes up?
No, of course I wouldn’t expect an apology from you. That would require a shred of decency
How is this thread working out for you? It’s like I’ve got a social democratic crystal ball or something
It’s working out well. We’ve demonstrated that the US healthcare system is laughable, and we should look to France (or perhaps Germany) if we really want a healthcare system that’s fit for purpose. "The French healthcare postcode lottery But credit where credit is due they give basic cover to those who need it…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a study of 910 families of what....60 million couples possibly with children. So 0.000015 % of the population extrapolated out. Amd the 66.5% comes from problems linked to medical. Which can range from not being able to work? To having a nervous breakdown? Polling is traditionally weighted, is it not? Glad we’ve moved away from calling people liars though. That’s growth. No you should have said its estimated 66.5% are tied to medical problems froma poll of 1000 Not "In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt" Which was a lie. You lied. I took a quote that you didn’t like from an article online. That quote was “66.5% of bankruptcies are caused directly by medical expenses, making it the leading cause for bankruptcy” I know you like to call people liars (but don’t like being called one yourself) but the quite is in the article - https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ So call me what you like. The proof of what I quoted is right there. " In your initial " source" you posted. It never said that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. My own anecdotal evidence from everything I've had an issue. Football. - knocked myself out at 12 playing football waited for an assessment for 12 hours.never got seen had to leave. As told wouldn't get seen for another 12 hours. NHS in Wales around 2001. Pushed into river 2003 in hospital for 6 hours. Stiched up a nasty gash on leg sent home with bo anti bionics. Leg was infected and I ran a temp for 6 days. Lucking Nigerian neighbours were drs and spotted the error they check my record and Dr was written up for I competence. NHS in Wales Car crash 2007. Metal through shin/ under part of knee. Hospital 4 days. Accident tally left stitches inside knee which weren't degradable. Only when I co planned of pain they went back in and removed them to relieve the tension 2007 age 20 Torn tendont in neck 2014. This is the ongoing issue I'll be suing for 10 gp and Dr visits told to pay for own physio, rest of life on pain medication told can't be operated on . Private Dr said its a tendon issue in neck I'd ruptured can be fixed. Dpnt jave to spend £5 a week on pain killers and £40 every 2 weeks on a chiro. Private dr said absolutely gross misconduct on nhs behalf. All in over my life about £6k Knee problem as above Prostate. June 21 to present. 8 rounds of antibiotics across 2 years. 4 sti tests because drs couldn't believe a pain in my urethra and balls wasn't an sti. All in probably £200 for test and anti biotics. Turns out going private it is likely my prostate. Which has enlarged ( they should have checked after 3rd round antibiotics not ignore even past 10th . The NHS has been useless my entire life. " asking this in good faith: why have you got private medical ? You must be tempted ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a study of 910 families of what....60 million couples possibly with children. So 0.000015 % of the population extrapolated out. Amd the 66.5% comes from problems linked to medical. Which can range from not being able to work? To having a nervous breakdown? Polling is traditionally weighted, is it not? Glad we’ve moved away from calling people liars though. That’s growth. No you should have said its estimated 66.5% are tied to medical problems froma poll of 1000 Not "In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt" Which was a lie. You lied. I took a quote that you didn’t like from an article online. That quote was “66.5% of bankruptcies are caused directly by medical expenses, making it the leading cause for bankruptcy” I know you like to call people liars (but don’t like being called one yourself) but the quite is in the article - https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ So call me what you like. The proof of what I quoted is right there. In your initial " source" you posted. It never said that." Again, I have presented figures from several pieces. If you struggle with comprehension, I’m not sure what I can do to help you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. My own anecdotal evidence from everything I've had an issue. Football. - knocked myself out at 12 playing football waited for an assessment for 12 hours.never got seen had to leave. As told wouldn't get seen for another 12 hours. NHS in Wales around 2001. Pushed into river 2003 in hospital for 6 hours. Stiched up a nasty gash on leg sent home with bo anti bionics. Leg was infected and I ran a temp for 6 days. Lucking Nigerian neighbours were drs and spotted the error they check my record and Dr was written up for I competence. NHS in Wales Car crash 2007. Metal through shin/ under part of knee. Hospital 4 days. Accident tally left stitches inside knee which weren't degradable. Only when I co planned of pain they went back in and removed them to relieve the tension 2007 age 20 Torn tendont in neck 2014. This is the ongoing issue I'll be suing for 10 gp and Dr visits told to pay for own physio, rest of life on pain medication told can't be operated on . Private Dr said its a tendon issue in neck I'd ruptured can be fixed. Dpnt jave to spend £5 a week on pain killers and £40 every 2 weeks on a chiro. Private dr said absolutely gross misconduct on nhs behalf. All in over my life about £6k Knee problem as above Prostate. June 21 to present. 8 rounds of antibiotics across 2 years. 4 sti tests because drs couldn't believe a pain in my urethra and balls wasn't an sti. All in probably £200 for test and anti biotics. Turns out going private it is likely my prostate. Which has enlarged ( they should have checked after 3rd round antibiotics not ignore even past 10th . The NHS has been useless my entire life. asking this in good faith: why have you got private medical ? You must be tempted ... " At some companies I do. Others not. I pay my taxes. If the nhs doesn't want to use them wisely and treat me properly. It should pay for its ineptitude. I shouldn't pay personally | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a study of 910 families of what....60 million couples possibly with children. So 0.000015 % of the population extrapolated out. Amd the 66.5% comes from problems linked to medical. Which can range from not being able to work? To having a nervous breakdown? Polling is traditionally weighted, is it not? Glad we’ve moved away from calling people liars though. That’s growth. No you should have said its estimated 66.5% are tied to medical problems froma poll of 1000 Not "In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt" Which was a lie. You lied. I took a quote that you didn’t like from an article online. That quote was “66.5% of bankruptcies are caused directly by medical expenses, making it the leading cause for bankruptcy” I know you like to call people liars (but don’t like being called one yourself) but the quite is in the article - https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ So call me what you like. The proof of what I quoted is right there. In your initial " source" you posted. It never said that. Again, I have presented figures from several pieces. If you struggle with comprehension, I’m not sure what I can do to help you. " You cha he'd the wording. And the pieces you quoted didn't quote your original statements. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^above on this. Yes I am suing the NHS currently for gross negligence and causing pain when it wasn't necessary. And that is a big difference with the NHS and private healthcare, the NHS don't particularly care if you are not happy, or have not been treated correctly as you have nowhere else to go in most cases and they don't need great feedback scores. Under new labour public trust in the NHS was at an all-time high. My own anecdotal evidence from everything I've had an issue. Football. - knocked myself out at 12 playing football waited for an assessment for 12 hours.never got seen had to leave. As told wouldn't get seen for another 12 hours. NHS in Wales around 2001. Pushed into river 2003 in hospital for 6 hours. Stiched up a nasty gash on leg sent home with bo anti bionics. Leg was infected and I ran a temp for 6 days. Lucking Nigerian neighbours were drs and spotted the error they check my record and Dr was written up for I competence. NHS in Wales Car crash 2007. Metal through shin/ under part of knee. Hospital 4 days. Accident tally left stitches inside knee which weren't degradable. Only when I co planned of pain they went back in and removed them to relieve the tension 2007 age 20 Torn tendont in neck 2014. This is the ongoing issue I'll be suing for 10 gp and Dr visits told to pay for own physio, rest of life on pain medication told can't be operated on . Private Dr said its a tendon issue in neck I'd ruptured can be fixed. Dpnt jave to spend £5 a week on pain killers and £40 every 2 weeks on a chiro. Private dr said absolutely gross misconduct on nhs behalf. All in over my life about £6k Knee problem as above Prostate. June 21 to present. 8 rounds of antibiotics across 2 years. 4 sti tests because drs couldn't believe a pain in my urethra and balls wasn't an sti. All in probably £200 for test and anti biotics. Turns out going private it is likely my prostate. Which has enlarged ( they should have checked after 3rd round antibiotics not ignore even past 10th . The NHS has been useless my entire life. asking this in good faith: why have you got private medical ? You must be tempted ... At some companies I do. Others not. I pay my taxes. If the nhs doesn't want to use them wisely and treat me properly. It should pay for its ineptitude. I shouldn't pay personally " fair enough. Feels like a point of principle that results in you cutting of your nose, given the pain and inconvenience, but I respect your stand even if I may have taken a different approach ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a study of 910 families of what....60 million couples possibly with children. So 0.000015 % of the population extrapolated out. Amd the 66.5% comes from problems linked to medical. Which can range from not being able to work? To having a nervous breakdown? Polling is traditionally weighted, is it not? Glad we’ve moved away from calling people liars though. That’s growth. No you should have said its estimated 66.5% are tied to medical problems froma poll of 1000 Not "In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt" Which was a lie. You lied. I took a quote that you didn’t like from an article online. That quote was I know you like to call people liars (but don’t like being called one yourself) but the quite is in the article - https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ So call me what you like. The proof of what I quoted is right there. In your initial " source" you posted. It never said that. Again, I have presented figures from several pieces. If you struggle with comprehension, I’m not sure what I can do to help you. You cha he'd the wording. And the pieces you quoted didn't quote your original statements." My original statement- “In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt” The actual quote was actually more specific “66.5% of bankruptcies are caused directly by medical expenses, making it the leading cause for bankruptcy” But since we’ve already proven that I’m not a liar, and yet you don’t appear likely to apologise for calling me one anytime soon, I think I’m out of this particular conversation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a study of 910 families of what....60 million couples possibly with children. So 0.000015 % of the population extrapolated out. Amd the 66.5% comes from problems linked to medical. Which can range from not being able to work? To having a nervous breakdown? Polling is traditionally weighted, is it not? Glad we’ve moved away from calling people liars though. That’s growth. No you should have said its estimated 66.5% are tied to medical problems froma poll of 1000 Not "In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt" Which was a lie. You lied. I took a quote that you didn’t like from an article online. That quote was I know you like to call people liars (but don’t like being called one yourself) but the quite is in the article - https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ So call me what you like. The proof of what I quoted is right there. In your initial " source" you posted. It never said that. Again, I have presented figures from several pieces. If you struggle with comprehension, I’m not sure what I can do to help you. You cha he'd the wording. And the pieces you quoted didn't quote your original statements. My original statement- “In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt” The actual quote was actually more specific “66.5% of bankruptcies are caused directly by medical expenses, making it the leading cause for bankruptcy” But since we’ve already proven that I’m not a liar, and yet you don’t appear likely to apologise for calling me one anytime soon, I think I’m out of this particular conversation. " The actual study "Medical problems contributed to 66.5% of all bankruptcies," This included people unable to work etc not their debt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a study of 910 families of what....60 million couples possibly with children. So 0.000015 % of the population extrapolated out. Amd the 66.5% comes from problems linked to medical. Which can range from not being able to work? To having a nervous breakdown? Polling is traditionally weighted, is it not? Glad we’ve moved away from calling people liars though. That’s growth. No you should have said its estimated 66.5% are tied to medical problems froma poll of 1000 Not "In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt" Which was a lie. You lied. I took a quote that you didn’t like from an article online. That quote was I know you like to call people liars (but don’t like being called one yourself) but the quite is in the article - https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ So call me what you like. The proof of what I quoted is right there. In your initial " source" you posted. It never said that. Again, I have presented figures from several pieces. If you struggle with comprehension, I’m not sure what I can do to help you. You cha he'd the wording. And the pieces you quoted didn't quote your original statements. My original statement- “In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt” The actual quote was actually more specific “66.5% of bankruptcies are caused directly by medical expenses, making it the leading cause for bankruptcy” But since we’ve already proven that I’m not a liar, and yet you don’t appear likely to apologise for calling me one anytime soon, I think I’m out of this particular conversation. The actual study "Medical problems contributed to 66.5% of all bankruptcies," This included people unable to work etc not their debt." *sigh* Did the quote I use appear in that piece or not? It’s a yes or no answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. It didn't appear in the original peice you quoted." It appeared in a piece I quoted. As I’ve proven. Now I really am out because a) you’ve been proven wrong, b) Your inability to accept you’ve been proving wrong is grating, and c) you’re the first to demand apologies when people have called you a liar, but don’t hold yourself to the same standard. All very nu-Tory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a study of 910 families of what....60 million couples possibly with children. So 0.000015 % of the population extrapolated out. Amd the 66.5% comes from problems linked to medical. Which can range from not being able to work? To having a nervous breakdown? Polling is traditionally weighted, is it not? Glad we’ve moved away from calling people liars though. That’s growth. No you should have said its estimated 66.5% are tied to medical problems froma poll of 1000 Not "In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt" Which was a lie. You lied. I took a quote that you didn’t like from an article online. That quote was I know you like to call people liars (but don’t like being called one yourself) but the quite is in the article - https://www.retireguide.com/retirement-planning/risks/medical-bankruptcy-statistics/ So call me what you like. The proof of what I quoted is right there. In your initial " source" you posted. It never said that. Again, I have presented figures from several pieces. If you struggle with comprehension, I’m not sure what I can do to help you. You cha he'd the wording. And the pieces you quoted didn't quote your original statements. My original statement- “In the States, 66% of all bankruptcies are caused directly by medical debt” The actual quote was actually more specific “66.5% of bankruptcies are caused directly by medical expenses, making it the leading cause for bankruptcy” But since we’ve already proven that I’m not a liar, and yet you don’t appear likely to apologise for calling me one anytime soon, I think I’m out of this particular conversation. The actual study "Medical problems contributed to 66.5% of all bankruptcies," This included people unable to work etc not their debt. *sigh* Did the quote I use appear in that piece or not? It’s a yes or no answer. " You used quotes which you didn't check, both of them were at best over-inflated or at worst lies. Just be sure to check your sources and you won't end up looking silly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
