American Third Position Political Party
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains
Next: Anyone here use a Panasonic DMW-LT55 Teleconverter?
From: Brent on 23 Jan 2010 12:56 On 2010-01-23, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >>Also, an 80 year old person cannot get a kidney or transplant. Heart >>transplant candidates are carefully screened. All of this is a form of >>rationing. > In the UK they would if they were fit enough for the operation and it > would improve their life. That said AFAIK all patients get screened for > operations as no one wants to do pointless operations. However these > decisions are taken on medical grounds. That's rationing of the pie. The customer doesn't decide, the government employee does. They decide how the health care pie is going to be split up. They decide if the 80 year old is deserving of it or not. It's a fixed supply system. That's the mentality it runs under.
From: Peter on 23 Jan 2010 12:53 "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:GCVnG4MZJzWLFAGL(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <4b5b0a58$0$30934$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes >>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:sdzdhdCBKvWLFAjF@p >>haedsys.demon.co.uk... >> >>> As I discovered this morning (and from the last 50 years of personal >>> experience) it is not rationed. The "rationed" and "death panels" is a >>> myth concocted by the US anti-Obama people. It is not something Brits >>> would recognise. >>> >> >>Basically true, > > It is true. I am British, living in the UK and had cause to use the NHS > this morning. > >>but many myths are based upon some fact. Health care is rationed, to >>some extent. I know of no system that gives unlimited treatment to all >>comers. > > The UK tries to as do many other systems. It does fall over sometimes in > practice. Do the docs still classify patients as private? > >> Common sense tells us that is fiscally impossible. Here in the US, >>under our current system rationing is partially based upon ability to >>pay. > > Quite so. > >>No one really believes that the medical treatment given to our poverty >>level patients is the same as for those who can afford to pay. > > In the UK there is no difference. > I have no direct means of verifying that. However, working on the assumption that the Brits have characteristics of human nature, I suppose it would depend upon whether some doctors get paid privately. Do you really believe that the Queen has to wait in her doctor's waiting room? >>Also, an 80 year old person cannot get a kidney or transplant. Heart >>transplant candidates are carefully screened. All of this is a form of >>rationing. > > In the UK they would if they were fit enough for the operation and it > would improve their life. That said AFAIK all patients get screened for > operations as no one wants to do pointless operations. However these > decisions are taken on medical grounds. > -- Peter
From: Chris H on 23 Jan 2010 13:16 In message <4b5b3875$0$31020$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes >"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:GCVnG4MZJzWLFAGL@p >haedsys.demon.co.uk... >> >>>No one really believes that the medical treatment given to our poverty >>>level patients is the same as for those who can afford to pay. >> >> In the UK there is no difference. >> > >I have no direct means of verifying that. I can. I live here. >However, working on the assumption that the Brits have characteristics >of human nature, I suppose it would depend upon whether some doctors >get paid privately. There are both private and NHS doctors. Some do both. Having an NHS system does not preclude private medical systems. It is not a mutually exclusive choice. Everyone pays for the NHS in taxes. Everyone gets NHS treatment. Those who want to do something else (in addition) can do. It is no good saying I want to be private ONLY (and no pay the taxes for the NHS) and then one day suddenly find you are broke and have no issuance etc and no private medical care any more. As you will not have paid into the NHS system and then should not be treated under it. >Do you really believe that the Queen has to wait in her doctor's >waiting room? No. There is no difference to the NHS. However if you want to pay for private treatment that is your choice. The Queen will use private medical treatment simply because of her position. The same is true or other people who for business, security or other reasons want their medical treatment on their terms and not the NHS terms. > -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 23 Jan 2010 13:17 In message <hjfd8f$pjv$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Brent <tetraethyll eadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes >On 2010-01-23, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > >>>Also, an 80 year old person cannot get a kidney or transplant. Heart >>>transplant candidates are carefully screened. All of this is a form of >>>rationing. > >> In the UK they would if they were fit enough for the operation and it >> would improve their life. That said AFAIK all patients get screened for >> operations as no one wants to do pointless operations. However these >> decisions are taken on medical grounds. > >That's rationing of the pie. The customer doesn't decide, the government >employee does. Not at all the medical staff decide on MEDICAL grounds. >They decide how the health care pie is going to be split >up. They decide if the 80 year old is deserving of it or not. It's a >fixed supply system. That's the mentality it runs under. That is the US mentality. Not the NHS mentality. All I have seen so far is the US does not trust it's own governments. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Peter on 23 Jan 2010 15:06
"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:DSDmiZPA0zWLFAn+(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <4b5b3875$0$31020$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes >>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:GCVnG4MZJzWLFAGL@p >>haedsys.demon.co.uk... >>> >>>>No one really believes that the medical treatment given to our poverty >>>>level patients is the same as for those who can afford to pay. >>> >>> In the UK there is no difference. >>> >> >>I have no direct means of verifying that. > > I can. I live here. So, you expect us to believe that private gets no better treatment? I certainly do not believe that. > >>However, working on the assumption that the Brits have characteristics >>of human nature, I suppose it would depend upon whether some doctors >>get paid privately. > > There are both private and NHS doctors. Some do both. Having an NHS > system does not preclude private medical systems. It is not a mutually > exclusive choice. > > Everyone pays for the NHS in taxes. Everyone gets NHS treatment. Those > who want to do something else (in addition) can do. > > It is no good saying I want to be private ONLY (and no pay the taxes for > the NHS) and then one day suddenly find you are broke and have no > issuance etc and no private medical care any more. As you will not have > paid into the NHS system and then should not be treated under it. > >>Do you really believe that the Queen has to wait in her doctor's >>waiting room? > > > No. There is no difference to the NHS. However if you want to pay for > private treatment that is your choice. The Queen will use private > medical treatment simply because of her position. The same is true or > other people who for business, security or other reasons want their > medical treatment on their terms and not the NHS terms. > > And many, including a former PM or yours, will use private for other reasons. He even came here for treatment while he was in office. Out of discretion I will not reveal his name, nor how I know about it. -- Peter |