Originally posted by der schwarze Ritternah, its worth it just so they can say how much they have spent,
Holy socks! An extra £43bn is a lot of spondookage to throw at health care and not see any tangible results in outcomes or quality of care:
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2953425.ece
According to this guy, the NHS needs a massive overhaul:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/12/do1206.xml
thats the way politicians work here.
1 edit
Originally posted by eamon oToo true. At present Brown and Cameron are vying with each other to claim the prize for proposing to spend the most taxpayers' money on 'public services'.
nah, its worth it just so they can say how much they have spent,
thats the way politicians work here.
Originally posted by uzlessNo, you've got it totally wrong.
No amount of money will ever solve all the inherent problems of a private health care system.
So take money out of the equation and debate the merit of health care for all.
A good analogy is to food -- food is much more important than health. Without food, there is no life, therefore no health. So how do countries get away with having 'private food systems'? Because they WORK!
You buy food, you pay for food. Food costs relatively little. (Yes, failed countries can't feed themselves. Usually because there is a dictator "in charge". Don't get me started...)
On the other hand, we have health care. So far neither private nor public systems are above criticism. Why? Because both involve extensive government regulation. Everything from restricting the supply of doctors, to requiring prescriptions for drugs, to elaborate insurance schemes.
Imagine that I had to get 'insurance' to buy a loaf of bread and then claim the money back from an insurance company! The price of bread would go up 100-fold. That is what has happened with health care.
Get the government out of the health care system, and things will go just fine.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNo tangible results?
Holy socks! An extra £43bn is a lot of spondookage to throw at health care and not see any tangible results in outcomes or quality of care:
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2953425.ece
According to this guy, the NHS needs a massive overhaul:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/12/do1206.xml
"There are more doctors and nurses, more intensive care beds and scanners, better hospitals, shorter waiting times, fewer heart deaths, improved cancer treatment, and better mental health care. The NHS is delivering more care to more people, more quickly and, on at least some measures, medical treatment has brought improved health"
Yes, resurrection is still not on the list.
