Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Lista de Fóruns
Não pode escrever mensagens neste fórum. O nível mínimo de inscrição para o fazer neste fórum é Nível Peão.
Assunto: In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Among women with breast cancer, for example, there's a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. "Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world," writes Bartholomew, "and America has the best."
If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent.
Britain has only half as many CT scanners per million people as the United States, and half as many MRI scanners
Not only is the British equipment in short supply, but much of what's there should be loaded up and carted off to the nearest scrap dump. An audit by the World Health Organization, for instance, found that over half of Britain's x-ray machines were past their recommended safe time limit, and more than half the machines in anesthesiology required replacing.
Taken as a whole, Britain's universal healthcare system has evolved into a ramshackle structure where tests are underperformed, equipment is undersupplied, operations are underdone, and medical personnel are overworked, underpaid and overly tied down in red tape. In other words, your chances of coming out of the American medical system alive are dramatically better than in Britain.
As a footnote on Canada, the average wait for a simple MRI is three months. In Manitoba, the median wait for neurosurgery is 15.2 months. For chemotherapy in Saskatchewan, patients can expect to be in line for 10 weeks. At last report, 10,000 breast cancer patients who waited an average of two months for post-operation radiation treatments have filed a class action lawsuit against Quebec's hospitals.
Assunto: Re: In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Artful Dodger: Yes we have a waiting list.. and they took steps to sort it.
And please.. with the cancer business, much of it was due to patient recognition. It is inappropriate to use statistics without the full depth of how they came to be.
doctors were overworked, but that was due to an archaic system of training doctors.. It's been sorted. And they are just introducing a new computer system, so any doc, etc can look up any notes they need online. And our nurses kept getting knicked by a certain allies hospitals. The training is so good. So a recruitment campaign started.
As for Red Tape... Changes are in place so I hear regarding the worst problems, but that could apply to the USA model of medical insurance. A patient waking up in A&E finding he has a big bill for just a Red Tape glitch due some very un Hippocratic attitudes. Our feedback systems are such that citizens can change things, and those who care are changing things our side of the pond. You know your system is not perfect, so what do you feel needs to be changed?
What is a perfect model Art? Surely if politics were dropped over matters of health....
And isn't it a bit corny using old figures after moaning about old figures, and not knowing the background behind figures??
BTW.... imho politics and running a country don't mix. In the end, it is what's best for the people. For eg.. despite party's here all claiming we want the expense system transparent, the voting was as such, that prosecution is harder. Despite criticisms of the PM and defence budgeting, our troops (by the two main parties) are not guaranteed what they need no matter which gets in. Despite Gurkha's fighting as British Army soldiers, it took public outrage and a certain Celeb to get them the right to live in the country they lived in for many years.
Assunto: Re: In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Modificado por Papa Zoom (27. Julho 2009, 22:01:21)
(V): Instead of disputing the facts I present, you make excuses for your poor quality health care system. So much for your 24/7 nonsense. As for waiting lists, your country now has waiting lists to get ON a waiting list.
What's the perfect system? Certainly not the model your country offers. In fact, NO COUNTRY THE WITH SOCIALIZED medical model works well. NONE.
The US system is the best. Too costly yes and that and other things need fixin. But the quality of care overall is better than anything IN THE WORLD.
Assunto: Re: In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Artful Dodger: Our waiting lists (if you had done your research properly) were 18 months (as in average waiting times) before Labour took power.. now they are down to about 45 days... In many treatments less. The long waiting times built up due to a change in the management of NHS areas brought on by the previous conservative party in power... everyone has bad ideas!!
Your facts are old and out of date..."period"
And still I see nothing about how to fix the problem from you.
And we still have 24/7 healthcare. People say "this ain't right" and MP's have to use their brains and fix it.
Assunto: Re: In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
(V): Yes, you have 24/7 health care meaning they are open 24/7. NOT that you can get in any time because you can't. And you are simply wrong about the waiting times. They are months and for some procedures, up to a year or longer.
Assunto: Re: In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Artful Dodger: No, your stats are old regarding waiting figures. I read and checked the 2008 figures
And yes we have 24/7 health coverage... A person here has the right to be seen at any time of the day by a doctor, some clinics only run during days.. but they tend to be pre booked clinics to see specialists. Otherwise A&E is open 24/7 for serious problems. After hours GP's, etc, etc, etc.
It's no good just reading some old thought from a hater of universal health care and expect things to add up.. they won't!!
And if your courts are so plugged up... why hasn't anyone done something before? Why didn't Bush, Raygun, Bush sr, Carter, Clinton, etc?? And will that fix all the high costs in your system.. it's a start I feel, but not a total fix.
Assunto: Re: In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Assunto: Re: In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Artful Dodger: Then show it, and it's source and how they collected the data.
I know how easily some figures can be distorted. Show me it isn't and I'll believe you. But our papers agree with what I'm saying.. even Murdoch's bunch are quiet.. surprisingly
Assunto: Re: In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Assunto: Re: In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Artful Dodger: Then show it, and it's source and how they collected the data.
(esconder) Se, de repente, o site aparecer numa língua diferente, basta clicar na bandeira da sua língua e tudo voltará ao normal. (pauloaguia) (mostrar todas as dicas)