FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is it about brexit or... About LIFE?
Is it about brexit or... About LIFE?
Jump to: Newest in thread
Babyboomer Brits has enjoyed of the VAST NHS' benefits since they were born, and they all don't know a life without it for which reason they take it for granted. I have read here many in their 60s moaning about how terrible the NHS is, but in its current underfunded state, the NHS is by FAR better than any private insurance in the US of A... You/we are far better off with it than with a paid alternative, a pricey one (between $10k-$15k a year, per head)... Tories are promising us the sky after brexit is achieved, including an amazing deal with the US. trompo recognised the NHS (as many other things... ???) Will be on the negotiation's table, during initial talks with former PM Theresa May. Which leads me to ask: Would you be ready to relinquish your (your children, relatives, friends, the ones you know with cancer; the many that can't afford to take care of themselves) granted NHS access for an unknown and pricey ($10k-$15k per head, a year) alternative, that based on the US experience is far worst than what we currently have in its underfunded state, in order to get brexit done? Will you put brexit above LIFE? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
I'm not entirely sure what this post is about?
The NHS is free at point of entry, and always will be, to anyone that qualifies to use it.
Private health care is already available in the UK. There are many providers.
The Conservative Party have no intention of selling it off to the USA, or anyone else.
Hope that addresses your concerns. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
The Conservatives will do what they always do - shift a monopoly run by the state to a monopoly run by the private sector.
Yes, the brand above the door still says NHS - but look behind the scenes in England and often it is a plethora of commercial companies operating NHS services under contract.
So they can still say the service is adhering to the principles of being free at the point of delivery etc.
It's just there's quite a bit of profit being creamed from you and I along the way by shifting the management of your care from the state to the private sector.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not entirely sure what this post is about?
The NHS is free at point of entry, and always will be, to anyone that qualifies to use it.
Private health care is already available in the UK. There are many providers.
The Conservative Party have no intention of selling it off to the USA, or anyone else.
Hope that addresses your concerns. "
Give tories a few more years and you will see what I'm writing about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I'm not entirely sure what this post is about?
The NHS is free at point of entry, and always will be, to anyone that qualifies to use it.
Private health care is already available in the UK. There are many providers.
The Conservative Party have no intention of selling it off to the USA, or anyone else.
Hope that addresses your concerns. "
"The NHS is free at point of entry, and always will be"
Not true. This is not inevitable and set in stone. It may not even be desirable. There are good arguments for means testing or having a small flat fee.
The NHS is prepped for privatisation. GPs "comission" treatment. As has been stated every part of the NHS could now be run by a private company. We then pay over the odds for treatment as they make a profit rather than charge at coat price. Price competition in healthcare is not a desirable free market structure is it?
"The Conservative Party have no intention of selling it off to the USA, or anyone else."
Why? Because they say so and don't tell naked lies? That sounds just a little naive. You really believe that this and agriculture will not be ok the table in trade negotiations with the US? At the very least it will add years to the process  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
All I can say is that if you are being told one thing by someone who is a proven liar (sacked twice for it) and who has a reputation for dishonesty in his personal and business life why would you believe him or the party that he leads? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not entirely sure what this post is about?
The NHS is free at point of entry, and always will be, to anyone that qualifies to use it.
Private health care is already available in the UK. There are many providers.
The Conservative Party have no intention of selling it off to the USA, or anyone else.
Hope that addresses your concerns.
"The NHS is free at point of entry, and always will be"
Not true. This is not inevitable and set in stone. It may not even be desirable. There are good arguments for means testing or having a small flat fee.
The NHS is prepped for privatisation. GPs "comission" treatment. As has been stated every part of the NHS could now be run by a private company. We then pay over the odds for treatment as they make a profit rather than charge at coat price. Price competition in healthcare is not a desirable free market structure is it?
"The Conservative Party have no intention of selling it off to the USA, or anyone else."
Why? Because they say so and don't tell naked lies? That sounds just a little naive. You really believe that this and agriculture will not be ok the table in trade negotiations with the US? At the very least it will add years to the process "
it will never be sold off because which ever party sold would commit political suicide for decades so why would they look at the reaction to lib dems after uni fees were trebled |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All I can say is that if you are being told one thing by someone who is a proven liar (sacked twice for it) and who has a reputation for dishonesty in his personal and business life why would you believe him or the party that he leads? "
Because he has funny hair and sats funny things? I saw a middle aged women on the news who stated that she would vote for Boris because she liked him even though she admitted he is a liar , scary  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All I can say is that if you are being told one thing by someone who is a proven liar (sacked twice for it) and who has a reputation for dishonesty in his personal and business life why would you believe him or the party that he leads? "
It depends what he's saying. If he's saying that NHS won't be sold to US big pharma or anyone else then I believe him because I know there is no appetite in the Conservative party, and never has been, to do that. If he's saying that no more private service providers to the NHS will be allowed then I wouldn't believe it because I know there is definitely an appetite in the Conservative party to provide services locally and via private organisations rather than centrally or via state run organisation.
To be frank, I don't really care if the services are provided by state run organisations or privately run organisations. I only care that the service is provided, that it's provided well, and that it's provided in the most cost effective way.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will never be sold off because which ever party sold would commit political suicide for decades so why would they look at the reaction to lib dems after uni fees were trebled "
But conservative is the business party; why wouldn't they?... Even trompo said to us, after private negotiation talks with TM, that everything is on the table including the NHS. Don't take the NHS for granted  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It always amuses me that whenever any form of private sector health care is discussed, the anti's always go straight to the USA for comparison.
Do they think that the US is the only country with private health care? Or do they just like to use the worst possible example as a way of shutting down the debate?
I've used the NHS and, to be fair, the care (when I finally got it) was very good. However that isn't always the case and waiting times are a massive problem.
I've also used the private German and Spanish health systems and in both cases the care was very good and free at the point of use.
The German system (which is the one I am more familiar with) has hardly any waiting lists, and even the very few that it has are so short (a week or two) that you hardly notice.
So the question has to be: What is so wrong with private health care if it can produce the results, free at the point of use, and on time?
Or is it that the real objection has nothing to do with health care but has everything to do with retaining the status quo of trade union control?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I'm not entirely sure what this post is about?
The NHS is free at point of entry, and always will be, to anyone that qualifies to use it.
Private health care is already available in the UK. There are many providers.
The Conservative Party have no intention of selling it off to the USA, or anyone else.
Hope that addresses your concerns.
"The NHS is free at point of entry, and always will be"
Not true. This is not inevitable and set in stone. It may not even be desirable. There are good arguments for means testing or having a small flat fee.
The NHS is prepped for privatisation. GPs "comission" treatment. As has been stated every part of the NHS could now be run by a private company. We then pay over the odds for treatment as they make a profit rather than charge at coat price. Price competition in healthcare is not a desirable free market structure is it?
"The Conservative Party have no intention of selling it off to the USA, or anyone else."
Why? Because they say so and don't tell naked lies? That sounds just a little naive. You really believe that this and agriculture will not be ok the table in trade negotiations with the US? At the very least it will add years to the process it will never be sold off because which ever party sold would commit political suicide for decades so why would they look at the reaction to lib dems after uni fees were trebled "
It doesn't have to be "sold off" to be privatised. That's what I outlined.
If money is being taken as profit within the organisation then our money isn't being spent as efficiently as it should be.
Price competition is not a good model for medical care so a market does not function.
It does not in any country that has private healthcare.
What's the benefit to taxpayers of private healthcare provision in lieu of a state run NHS? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It always amuses me that whenever any form of private sector health care is discussed, the anti's always go straight to the USA for comparison.
Do they think that the US is the only country with private health care? Or do they just like to use the worst possible example as a way of shutting down the debate?
I've used the NHS and, to be fair, the care (when I finally got it) was very good. However that isn't always the case and waiting times are a massive problem.
I've also used the private German and Spanish health systems and in both cases the care was very good and free at the point of use.
The German system (which is the one I am more familiar with) has hardly any waiting lists, and even the very few that it has are so short (a week or two) that you hardly notice.
So the question has to be: What is so wrong with private health care if it can produce the results, free at the point of use, and on time?
Or is it that the real objection has nothing to do with health care but has everything to do with retaining the status quo of trade union control?
"
The real objection is as I outlined above.
Profit is being taken out so money that could be spent on healthcare is being inefficiently used.
Cost competition is not appropriate for healthcare. The market does not function.
There is no inherent benefit to the taxpayer in the government paying for private provision.
The nightmare is the US system where your healthcare is directly related to the level of your insurance provision. This also impacts on your employment choices. Can you afford to speak your mind if losing your job also loses you and your family's healthcare?
If you can explain what the benefit of private company involvement is then I'd be interested. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It always amuses me that whenever any form of private sector health care is discussed, the anti's always go straight to the USA for comparison.
Do they think that the US is the only country with private health care? Or do they just like to use the worst possible example as a way of shutting down the debate?
I've used the NHS and, to be fair, the care (when I finally got it) was very good. However that isn't always the case and waiting times are a massive problem.
I've also used the private German and Spanish health systems and in both cases the care was very good and free at the point of use.
The German system (which is the one I am more familiar with) has hardly any waiting lists, and even the very few that it has are so short (a week or two) that you hardly notice.
So the question has to be: What is so wrong with private health care if it can produce the results, free at the point of use, and on time?
Or is it that the real objection has nothing to do with health care but has everything to do with retaining the status quo of trade union control?
"
Christ alive man - trade union control? What decade are you living in? 
Maybe part of the problem is the english love of queuing? What bothers most people is that they are used to the NHS being completely free and are therefore accepting of long waiting lists and cancelled appointments as a matter of routine. So people with the money jump the queue and get the best treatment in private hospitals but the treatments they are having are mostly elective and pre-planned which makes it easier to be efficient (I had a minor surgery done last year at the Spire which was done and dusted in an afternoon) but the NHS gets to pick up all the emergency medicine and the long term degenerative conditions which are more expensive and less predictable in terms of costs. Private care providers in the UK therefore get to cherry pick and the NHS get everything else. I have no problem with people paying for private healthcare as they are also paying towards the nhs but the system here is not comparable with the european system and nobody wants the US system. Either you believe in universal healthcare or you dont and that is a reflection of your humanity  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So the question has to be: What is so wrong with private health care if it can produce the results, free at the point of use, and on time?"
...Perhaps price; high prices? Which makes sense: Private health is a business and shareholders interest prevail in businesses; fuck CSR  ...We're talking about something you e.g. have had for free since you were born. Perhaps you can afford private insurance now, but wouldn't you (deep inside) agree that younger ones deserve that type of opportunity (you may now call it "luxury") too? Therefore my question: Brexit (and the likely NHS sale) or LIFE? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So the question has to be: What is so wrong with private health care if it can produce the results, free at the point of use, and on time?
...Perhaps price; high prices? Which makes sense: Private health is a business and shareholders interest prevail in businesses; fuck CSR ...We're talking about something you e.g. have had for free since you were born. Perhaps you can afford private insurance now, but wouldn't you (deep inside) agree that younger ones deserve that type of opportunity (you may now call it "luxury") too? Therefore my question: Brexit (and the likely NHS sale) or LIFE?"
You lot just really don't get it do you.
The German system is universal. The German system is free at the point of use, and more importantly it works. Healthcare isn't a political football because the system works for everybody and they just get on with it. Why is that so bad?
Governments (especially British ones) just cannot provide services that work, so if the private sector can do it better then why not?
"The British are used to queuing". FFS we are not talking a loaf of bread here.
It seems that you think the only type of private healthcare is BUPA and the like. It's not.
As for which decade am I living in?
Yes I do remember the bad old days of the 70's. But guess what? With Corbyn in charge it could very quickly be back to the future. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would not be happy to switch to a core private health insurance system here instead of the NHS. Unlike some, I foresee the USA wanting to include aspects or all of the NHS to be included in trade negotiations, even if they stipulate a future date that services would be included. It's not just Trump that wants such aspects of the NHS purchasing to be modified - other republicans are pushing for countries outside of the USA to have drug purchasing restrictions imposed. The fallacy there is that they want lower drugs prices in the USA. The race to the bottom will probably mean all will pay more and restrictions to medication choices will be extended.
The conservatives certainly do not care about the everyday person. You're a vote, that's all. They have been pulled to the more extreme right progressively and their tactics of propaganda and firing up the hostilities amongst the population means that many are now the dogmatic footsoldiers doing their dirty work for them.
Hatred against outsiders, instead of the conservative party which left their society bereft of resources and which didn't invest in them, because you were of no interest and unimportant.
Stigmatising the infirm and the disabled, likewise because of the unimportance of providing a supportive society and one with appropriately funded services. Social care services that are thrown to the wolves. Ordinary people do not matter to these bastards.
They are on an ideological drive to cut the state. They are absolutely not to be trusted. Johnson and Co will disappear as things deteriorate. They are here for themselves only. They have given you every reason why they should not be trusted in the slightest with your well-being. If you have hesitations that protecting the NHS isn't suitable justification, then you can consider how they will harm you in any way that they may pick, as you will never be important. Progressive, selective undermining of the UK social fabric, so that the UK becomes ever more like the rat run that is the USA, rather than our more social democratic style of politics and living here in Europe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
So the question has to be: What is so wrong with private health care if it can produce the results, free at the point of use, and on time?
...Perhaps price; high prices? Which makes sense: Private health is a business and shareholders interest prevail in businesses; fuck CSR ...We're talking about something you e.g. have had for free since you were born. Perhaps you can afford private insurance now, but wouldn't you (deep inside) agree that younger ones deserve that type of opportunity (you may now call it "luxury") too? Therefore my question: Brexit (and the likely NHS sale) or LIFE?
You lot just really don't get it do you.
The German system is universal. The German system is free at the point of use, and more importantly it works. Healthcare isn't a political football because the system works for everybody and they just get on with it. Why is that so bad?
Governments (especially British ones) just cannot provide services that work, so if the private sector can do it better then why not?
"The British are used to queuing". FFS we are not talking a loaf of bread here.
It seems that you think the only type of private healthcare is BUPA and the like. It's not.
As for which decade am I living in?
Yes I do remember the bad old days of the 70's. But guess what? With Corbyn in charge it could very quickly be back to the future."
Well as you dont live here anymore why do you feel you have to add anything anyway? Perhaps you are looking forward to when you have a chronic condition in your old age and will return to dear old blighty and rely on the over stretched services of the NHS? If you cant understand the irony of the queuing comment well perhaps you are becoming a bit too german for your own good? By the way that was also a joke |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
The Tories have adopted every other UKIP policy (according to Farage), so where does anyone have confidence they won't do the same with the NHS?
Voter backlash.
That is all that is stopping the Conservative Party.
When the Party puts politicians who have written policy papers on how to dismantle the NHS in charge of the, um, er, NHS, it is counter-intuitive to come on here and say they have any sort of ideological commitment to state provision.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Conservative Party have no intention of selling it off to the USA, or anyone else."
You'd have to be pretty fucking gullible to believe they wouldn't do it if they thought they could get away with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"Would you be ready to relinquish your (your children, relatives, friends, the ones you know with cancer; the many that can't afford to take care of themselves) granted NHS access for an unknown and pricey ($10k-$15k per head, a year) alternative"
To give a remainers opinion to your sentiment (from a breix stance), as both the Tory's and Labour have a Brexit policy - granted Labour seem more staunch in their view on the NHS (though their past has seen vast increases in PFI's), however: Breixt was about taking back control, which in early rhetoric suggested it would be far easier for laws to be passed to hold the government to account should the people want them to act in certain ways. This would mean if we did not want the USA in our NHS, we could easily pass laws. I should mention that competition laws regularly stop companies where monopolies may occur. last year Pfiser was stopped from acquiring Astra Zenica for instance.
If your main problem with Brexit is the NHS, then how does the break up of the union sit? 5.25 million people leaving the UK, forming an independent country, setting up borders, a new economy, a new historical chapter.
This vote is absolutely a milestone in everyones ball point pen.
Tory - Brexit, billions spent (£56bn?) poss economic crash. No Scottish Independence vote
Labour - Half Breixt, still paying in if voted through in Referendum, possible revocation, hundreds on billions spent, No skilled workforce to support plans, economic crash through debt. Scottish Independence vote.
Libs - Revocation, £100bn spent, not so much debt as remaining in EU would likely balance in normalised trading. Scottish Independence Vote.
Makes me want to put my head in the sand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Babyboomer Brits has enjoyed of the VAST NHS' benefits since they were born, and they all don't know a life without it for which reason they take it for granted. I have read here many in their 60s moaning about how terrible the NHS is, but in its current underfunded state, the NHS is by FAR better than any private insurance in the US of A... You/we are far better off with it than with a paid alternative, a pricey one (between $10k-$15k a year, per head)... Tories are promising us the sky after brexit is achieved, including an amazing deal with the US. trompo recognised the NHS (as many other things... ???) Will be on the negotiation's table, during initial talks with former PM Theresa May. Which leads me to ask: Would you be ready to relinquish your (your children, relatives, friends, the ones you know with cancer; the many that can't afford to take care of themselves) granted NHS access for an unknown and pricey ($10k-$15k per head, a year) alternative, that based on the US experience is far worst than what we currently have in its underfunded state, in order to get brexit done? Will you put brexit above LIFE?"
There are many here in this post who would gladly let people die if it meant they paid less to state. Shame on them, they are selfish and self centred. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It always amuses me that whenever any form of private sector health care is discussed, the anti's always go straight to the USA for comparison.
Do they think that the US is the only country with private health care? Or do they just like to use the worst possible example as a way of shutting down the debate?
I've used the NHS and, to be fair, the care (when I finally got it) was very good. However that isn't always the case and waiting times are a massive problem.
I've also used the private German and Spanish health systems and in both cases the care was very good and free at the point of use.
The German system (which is the one I am more familiar with) has hardly any waiting lists, and even the very few that it has are so short (a week or two) that you hardly notice.
So the question has to be: What is so wrong with private health care if it can produce the results, free at the point of use, and on time?
Or is it that the real objection has nothing to do with health care but has everything to do with retaining the status quo of trade union control?
"
The German system is just a hypothecated tax.
The "insurance" that an individual and their employer has to pay goes into the German NHS.
It is state run and funded and is about 2% more GDP spend than the UK.
There is nothing private involved unless you choose to pay.
It's the same as here except they spend more money on it.
Now tell me that I'm wrong, preferably with some data. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"The Conservative Party have no intention of selling it off to the USA, or anyone else.
You'd have to be pretty fucking gullible to believe they wouldn't do it if they thought they could get away with it."
You are, like many, passing off opinion as fact to suit your own political agenda. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would you be ready to relinquish your (your children, relatives, friends, the ones you know with cancer; the many that can't afford to take care of themselves) granted NHS access for an unknown and pricey ($10k-$15k per head, a year) alternative
To give a remainers opinion to your sentiment (from a breix stance), as both the Tory's and Labour have a Brexit policy - granted Labour seem more staunch in their view on the NHS (though their past has seen vast increases in PFI's), however: Breixt was about taking back control, which in early rhetoric suggested it would be far easier for laws to be passed to hold the government to account should the people want them to act in certain ways. This would mean if we did not want the USA in our NHS, we could easily pass laws. I should mention that competition laws regularly stop companies where monopolies may occur. last year Pfiser was stopped from acquiring Astra Zenica for instance.
If your main problem with Brexit is the NHS, then how does the break up of the union sit? 5.25 million people leaving the UK, forming an independent country, setting up borders, a new economy, a new historical chapter.
This vote is absolutely a milestone in everyones ball point pen.
Tory - Brexit, billions spent (£56bn?) poss economic crash. No Scottish Independence vote
Labour - Half Breixt, still paying in if voted through in Referendum, possible revocation, hundreds on billions spent, No skilled workforce to support plans, economic crash through debt. Scottish Independence vote.
Libs - Revocation, £100bn spent, not so much debt as remaining in EU would likely balance in normalised trading. Scottish Independence Vote.
Makes me want to put my head in the sand."
Chin up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You can almost garantee that part of any deal with the US will mean much higher prices to the NHS for drugs.
They will squeeze as mucg money out as they can get because we will lose a lot of buying power being just a small market compared to the rest of the EU as a whole.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You can almost garantee that part of any deal with the US will mean much higher prices to the NHS for drugs.
They will squeeze as mucg money out as they can get because we will lose a lot of buying power being just a small market compared to the rest of the EU as a whole.
"
...Additionally to the US being always protectionist when it negotiates - my way or no way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rufinWoman
over a year ago
notts |
Increased prices for pharmaceuticals is one stated aim of the USA.
Look at how much simple drugs like asthma inhalers cost in the US versus here. The nhs couldn't run if it had to pay those prices
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
