2012

Comment

Comment by Ron Tocknell on August 29, 2009 at 9:41am

Many people also opt for private healthcare insurance such as BUPA (boopa boopa beebop a loopa... sorry about that. I'll be OK in a minute) but this only ensures private wards and bypassing waiting lists. The actual quality of healthcare is the same.

Comment by Ron Tocknell on August 29, 2009 at 9:32am

Yes, Holly. I have it on good authority that boiling blood can be harmful to health

Comment by Holly on August 29, 2009 at 9:27am

Morning everyone,,
In the line of Ron and Joan's thread... What right wingers in this country fail to recognize is we already have and have been happily using socialized programs for years. Where do these crazed gun toting tea bagging morons think their food stamps and unemployment and welfare checks come from when they get laid off by the very puppet masters that have brain washed them into thinking that socialism = communism. Where do they think Grandma gets her "social" security check from?
I think these morons should be given the option to opt out of these "socialized programs if they feel so strongly about less government.
They lie and rant about "death panels" yet they are the ones showing up at public debates with the guns.
The hypocrisy in this country makes my blood boil!
Cancel cancel cancel ...deep breath ...

Comment by Ron Tocknell on August 29, 2009 at 8:49am

It's not incorrect to call it 'socialism' as the essence of socialism is run on democratic principles. The error is in assuming that socialism must go hand-in-hand with communist dictatorships. Socialism is when a service or resource is owned by the state instead of private companies and the primary objective is equal distribution and accessibility instead of profit. So, in that respect, yes, a national health care plan is akin to socialism. If health care resources (hospitals etc.) are owned by the state and / or if funding systems (health insurance etc.) are owned and maintained by the state, it's essentially socialism.

I don't think objections are well thought through. The main objection is often "why should I pay for healthcare services for somebody else?" the answer to which, is: "because you're a human being... and because somebody else is also paying for your healthcare".

Objectors have to accept that what they are objecting to is that there are no losers.

Most treatments are within a reasonable timescale although certain procedures do have waiting lists, depending on demand and available resources. Almost all doctors do private work and NHS work so there is no difference in the quality of the doctors. Hospitals and clinics are good and prescriptions carry standard charges so you pay the same whatever the cost of the pharmaceuticals. Any drugs given directly by the doctor are free.

Sure sounds like a recipe for evil, eh?

Comment by Ron Tocknell on August 29, 2009 at 6:03am

The National Health Service is essentially an excellent system. It was introduced in 1948 by the Aneurin (Nye) Bevan who was given responsibility for healthcare by the then Prime Minister, Clement Atlee.

Basically, all UK citizens pay a National Insurance contribution, which is deducted at source along with Internal Revenue tax. This covers the costs of welfare benefits and health care. It has suffered over the decades from underfunding and mismanagement in the hands of various politicians who barely qualify as vertebrates but, on the whole, it is pretty good. Few dental services are available under this scheme, however (hence British teeth... need I say more?).

Because it is funded by everyone, even those who prefer to use private health care, it is free at the point of delivery. It was introduced just days before I was born in 1948 so I was among the first to be "born free".

Comment by Ron Tocknell on August 29, 2009 at 5:33am

Joan, you're right about docs banding together for fear of litigation. We live in a litigation society... perhaps more so in the US but the UK is catching up. Lawsuits are frequently seen as a means of raising money. A positive approach would be a letter to the doctor or clinic, pointing out the error or negligence and stating that you are prepared to consider a 'no blame' solution on the condition that the clinic hold a meeting with you and openly and honestly discuss the problem and establish strategies to prevent a recurrence of the situation. That would mean any staff responsible for negligence would be sent for additional training, any failure of equipment rectified etc. and, of course, any actual financial loss to you as a result recompensed. In return, you sign an agreement not to sue. Any failure to accept culpability or withholding of any evidence would void the agreement and you can sue. That way, the clinic would have a vested interest in being open and honest and effectively addressing any shortcomings.

As it stands, clinics, doctors etc. cannot afford to be honest or accept liability and the costs of punitive damages often mean that the additional cost of rectifying failures is shelved. It means you don't get a huge payout but you make positive changes and it's good Karma

Comment by Ron Tocknell on August 29, 2009 at 1:41am

"we can graciously and rightfully sue another when we do it based on intention of righting a wrong, not with anger, vengence and intent to damage."

Sadly, the intention is so often about getting money and nothing to do with righting wrongs. If the victim suffers financial loss then, of course, this should be addressed. But suppose someone is injured at work through sloppy H&S procedures. The victim could take the employers to the cleaners and make a few bucks.... or the victim could use this leverage to call the employers to a meeting to discuss what went wrong and how it could be addressed and withhold litigation on the understanding that the company takes such measures to ensure that H&S procedures are tightened up... thus truly righting a wrong.

But, when faced with an opportunity to either right a wrong or make a few bucks, the money wins every time. But I live in hope that there is someone, somewhere on this planet that would give a higher priority to righting wrongs than inflating their bank balance.

Comment by Holly on August 28, 2009 at 3:04pm

Geeze I go away for a day and come back and see I missed all the fun!
Thanks for being such a good sport Violette .. We love you

Comment by Ron Tocknell on August 28, 2009 at 1:42pm

Wound?? I meant "would"

Comment by Ron Tocknell on August 28, 2009 at 1:41pm

The British poet, Roger McGough once wrote a poem about everyone thinking the world wound end at 9:00 so everyone went about doing all the things they'd always wanted to do... but the world didn't end and the following day, everyone felt very embarrassed. Then someone had a brilliant idea... why not pretend the world is going to end every night at 9:00?

There's a lot to be said in that

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• …
• 19
• Next ›
• Page