Oh I'm ever so 'umble

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with that in principle, but I suppose the definition of "excess" and "expensive" would vary considerably from person to person. I think when I get to the point that I can't read, or take a walk outside, it'll be time to call it a day. In the meantime, if I have to, I'll pay for medical treatment privately rather than risk a dose of MRSA from some filthy NHS hospital. Have you been to one recently? My parents have been visiting a relative who's been in and out of a few. In one, the wards were literally filthy, and patients who weren't capable of complaining, and had no relatives to speak for them, were treated like dogs. The relative in question did contract MRSA, but luckily didn't lose any body parts. Funnily enough, the other they went to was the complete opposite; a veritable palace!

Deleted

Last edited by Ante on 09 Nov 2005, 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I had Medicaid and had recently lost this (which has mostly spawned my anger of Republicans). Other than what my parents had provided for me as a minor, I have never had private insurance. Of course, in the US there isn't much choice. If I don't receive Medicaid, then I have to get private insurance.

But I agree whole-heartily that the US is ridiculous for not providing socialized health care and is one thing which I admire about Canada and the UK.

But if one has to PAY for insurance, business men make more money and that's why many people who once qualified for Medicaid and Medicare are losing their benefits.

PS- This whole thing that many politicians are pushing about Social Security and thus privatizing insurance is crap. In 2017 the social security tax merely needs to be increased ever-slightly to make sure money continues to come in and not just go out. Reagan had to do the same thing. But no politician brings that up.

Which is all very well if the local administrators of the 'health care' system are non-judgemental about who they will give services to. In England, it tends to be the comfortable, middle class areas that have the best health facilities, whle the inferior areas barely get a second glance.

For example, I once wanted to register with a GP Surgery and although he wanted me on his books (for which his practice would receive a sum of money), he did not want to have to dip into his budget by affording any treatments. I have not been registered with a Doctor since the mid 1980's, due to the utter indifference shown towards any problem I might present them with.

It seems that a political entity such as a government adminstered health service brings to bear a whole ideological package in terms of determining who is deemed 'worthy' of treatments. It just so happens that I fit none of the 'deserving and worthy' demographic profiles these people have built up for themselves.

There seem to be two types of people in regard to the NHS - those who receive ample treatments, attention, appointments and support for the feintest of ailments, and those who get brushed off and airily dismissed.

Predictably enough, these differences in treatment are closely correlated to the socio-political definitions of who is considered 'worthy and deserving' and who is not.

GP's are money adminstrators and bean counters these days, since their performance targets force them into the role.

It also has to be said that many of the GP's in the UK are disillusioned with the NHS Scheme and they realise that they can make a great deal more money out of private pracitice. The Doctors also work extremely long hours, simply because there are too few of them.


If I were higher up the socio-economic food chain I would be more than happy to pay directly for a service that I know I would be getting.

At least private health is run eficiently, which is more than can be said for the mushrooming costs of the NHS.