Matt Thrower
United Kingdom
Bath
Somerset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can't resist posting this:

http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/2011/07/12/an-eye-opening-...
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Чебурашка, ты настоящий друг!
United Kingdom
Durham
flag msg tools
Scheiß Inselaffen!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Don't post it on the Daily Mail site, mind. It'll all be "Free-loading foreigners take advantage of soft-touch NHS" in no time...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
They had one of the better experiences; I suggest late night Friday for an alternative experience. Overall I have been satisfied (and when it comes to Moorfields more then satisfied) with the standard of care I have received. But I have also been deeply unsatisfied with care some of my family and friends have received. Like any health care system sometimes it works and sometimes it fails. But at least it’s free at the point of delivery.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damien
United States
Knoxville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One thing that frustrates me about this whole argument in the US is that this country is not Europe, Asia, or even Canada. National medicine and social aspects of Gov't have been established there for years. In the US we would pay the taxes and receive a tenth of the benefits. US socialism is not the same thing at all as European, etc... socialism.

Would it be better than our current system? I seriously doubt it. Is the current system good? Not at all. I am not insured, cant afford it. but I dont look forward to being taxed for something that I rarely use and will not be able to afford through the gov't either.

My 2 cents.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lochmoigh wrote:
One thing that frustrates me about this whole argument in the US is that this country is not Europe, Asia, or even Canada. National medicine and social aspects of Gov't have been established there for years. In the US we would pay the taxes and receive a tenth of the benefits. US socialism is not the same thing at all as European, etc... socialism.

Would it be better than our current system? I seriously doubt it. Is the current system good? Not at all. I am not insured, cant afford it. but I dont look forward to being taxed for something that I rarely use and will not be able to afford through the gov't either.

My 2 cents.


Its an emergency system, no one uses it untill they need to. Thats the point of the above story, that it was there when the person needed it rather then not being there untill conviniant to the provider.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damien
United States
Knoxville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sorry I may have covered up my point too much. The US version will not look like any current nationalized health care, it will be a hybrid/botched version of what is out there. Instead of fixing/improving it will be worse and less effective that what is currently in place. In my opinion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lochmoigh wrote:
sorry I may have covered up my point too much. The US version will not look like any current nationalized health care, it will be a hybrid/botched version of what is out there. Instead of fixing/improving it will be worse and less effective that what is currently in place. In my opinion.


Why? surley those who do not get health care at the moment will. So why will it be worse then them not getting any at all?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jasper
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Salo sila wrote:
Don't post it on the Daily Mail site, mind. It'll all be "Free-loading foreigners take advantage of soft-touch NHS" in no time...
Well, I hate to say it but the Daily Mail would have a point then wouldn't it. Why does NHS provide free healthcare even to foreigners, and even to foreigners who are insured at home? That is certainly not how it's done in continental Europe. I can receive emergency treatment in any country, but my insurance here would be expected to pick up the tab, which seemingly makes sense.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damien
United States
Knoxville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
lochmoigh wrote:
sorry I may have covered up my point too much. The US version will not look like any current nationalized health care, it will be a hybrid/botched version of what is out there. Instead of fixing/improving it will be worse and less effective that what is currently in place. In my opinion.


Why? surley those who do not get health care at the moment will. So why will it be worse then them not getting any at all?


Surely you do not keep up with the intricacies of us political bull crap. the bill itself was 2074 pages. no one knows what it covers and what it doesn't. Not trying to be sarcastic but do you think that a gov't agency will implement something that large in a effective way that will make an impact on those of us without insurance? Can you point me in the direction of something that the US Gov't has done right?

I am not sure how much coverage you get on US disasters, but anytime something bad happens, but FEMA ( a federal agency) rushes in and everything slows to a crawl. People are not able to receive help from an agency who's whole existence is dealing with emergencies.

What makes you think that the health industry will see any better treatment?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lochmoigh wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
lochmoigh wrote:
sorry I may have covered up my point too much. The US version will not look like any current nationalized health care, it will be a hybrid/botched version of what is out there. Instead of fixing/improving it will be worse and less effective that what is currently in place. In my opinion.


Why? surley those who do not get health care at the moment will. So why will it be worse then them not getting any at all?


Surely you do not keep up with the intricacies of us political bull crap. the bill itself was 2074 pages. no one knows what it covers and what it doesn't. Not trying to be sarcastic but do you think that a gov't agency will implement something that large in a effective way that will make an impact on those of us without insurance? Can you point me in the direction of something that the US Gov't has done right?

I am not sure how much coverage you get on US disasters, but anytime something bad happens, but FEMA ( a federal agency) rushes in and everything slows to a crawl. People are not able to receive help from an agency who's whole existence is dealing with emergencies.

What makes you think that the health industry will see any better treatment?


So in fact you have no real reason to assume it will make things worse, just that it will cock some things up. I do not see how it will affect those with out insurnace (is that not the poeple its aimed at, those who do not have health care protection?) adversily. "I'm sorry Mr Spigot but we can treat your condition, I applogise and realise you would rather suffer but youi see the government is making us treat you".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damien
United States
Knoxville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To be honest I don't think anyone knows what the outcome will be. so I am assuming, and yes I know what that entails. However in the US anything that Gov't touches usually turns to poo. At least I don't know of anything they have done recently that works for the better. As far as affecting how those of us without insurance will fare? From what I understand we still have to contribute to insurance if we do not currently have it, that or pay a fine. So net result: more money out of my pocket. I don't have insurance, but then again I don't complain about not having it. If I could afford it without sacrificing other things (home, food, electric, etc... ) I would. The thought of being forced to purchase coverage is not appealing and it does not help me if I am poorer for it.

If you do some research you will see that social security was supposed to run at a surplus, it has cost much more than was originally projected and is in danger of being insolvent in the next decade or so. They may have the best of intentions (debatable) but the road to hell is paved with them.

By the way I do have reason, I do not have concrete proof in the case of the health care bill.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.