The NHS at 60

[belfastuniguy 18]

However, ultimately, my health is my concern only, unless it unreasonably affects the well-being of others, such as me having a highly dangerous disease.quote>

Could also be added the safety of your fellow employees and members of the public.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

However, ultimately, my health is my concern only, unless it unreasonably affects the well-being of others, such as me having a highly dangerous disease.quote>

Could also be added the safety of your fellow employees and members of the public.quote>

That would fall under "unreasonably affects the well-being of others."

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Lets look at America, yes SOME hospitals are superior, but lets not paint an image that all American healthcare is fabulous and Americans exist in a world of gleaming hospitals and glorious healthcare.

Those that can afford it can avail of some of the best care in the world. Same goes for wealthy people in the UK using private care. Lets take that bum from the street you mentioned.

He's suffered terrible pain, in the great USA he cannot avail of your superior healthcare, so your society confine him to under-funded, under-staffed and decaying social hospitals. In the UK we would not tolerate such a thing, everyone uses the same hospital whether rich or poor and they get the best care possible no matter the time involved or expense. That is what makes this country different to the United States and what makes many many more different to the United States. quote>

In the United States, said bum walks in off the street into a hospital complaining of terrible pain and gets treated anyway, regardless of ability to pay.  Emergency rooms treat people first and worry about if the person can pay later.  Case in point - my dad's mom broke her hip, and instead of sending her to the local "under-staffed and decaying social hospitals", they sent her to one of the best hospitals in the entire country.  Could she pay for it?  Heck no.  The government paid for whatever her insurance wouldn't cover (which was a lot).

Well, according to the above news story, it would seem that's sorta the case in the UK.

At least from a staunchly libertarian perspective, anyway.quote>

That article is specific to healthcare. Lets not debate freedoms between the United States and United Kingdom the American government is hardly a shining example of freedom.

Speak to people in the UK and they will give you their opinions regarding 'nanny state' ideas such as healthcare, education, security and various other things. I can assure you we do not tolerate our government interfering in our daily lives. We are happy for them to direct health policy as it does benefit the country. Maybe if the American government were more proactive about health you wouldn't have the worst obesity rates on earth. quote>

This has nothing to do with government health policy and everything to do with an invention called fast-food.  Based on this article here, it doesn't sound like obesity rates are anything particularly shining in the UK either.

How healthy I am is my problem and my problem only. quote>

Not really...say you neglect your health, your employer is not going to be best pleased, nor your family if you had one and lost ur job as a result of your inability to take care of yourself. A sick population has a negative effect on the overall economy and job productivity. quote>

While it may not being solely his problem, it still is solely his right.  For example, let's say Duke's boss is a vegetarian.  Duke's boss may be of the opinion that everyone in the office should be a vegetarian because it's a healthier lifestyle and will promote increased health and productivity around the office, and also lower the amount of insurance claims.  What gives Duke's boss the right to tell Duke and everyone else that they have to become a vegetarian?  Simple answer - nothing gives them that right.  Hence, ultimately, it still remains Duke's right to take care of or neglect his health however he sees fit.

Americans appear to be somewhat paranoid and selfish when it comes to their responsibility in society.quote>

Well, I said it before and I'll say it again - the average American is not paranoid, but adamant, and there is a difference.  As for selfish, I suppose you could make that point, but it's a weak point at best.  Pick most any American off any street in any city and ask them if people should help out those less who are truly less fortunate than themselves, and you'll get a very definitive "yes, we should - it's the right thing to do" sort of answer.  However, you'll be very hard-pressed to find an American who believes that it should be the government's responsibility to provide for everyone.  People will, of their own accord, donate money just to help the greater good without ever thinking about trying to get something out of it, and on top of that, as Ski pointed out, the government takes it one step further by encouraging charitable donations through tax credits and the like.  On top of that, if I donate the money as opposed to having the government take it and redistribute it, I know my money is actually going toward something productive.  I could give money to the government, but one day it may go to helping some family without a home, and another day it may go to restoring a historical building.  Personally, I'd say screw the building - the people are more important - but I don't have that ability when all that's happening is the government siphoning off some percentage of my paycheck and using it however they see fit.

[belfastuniguy 18]

While it may not being solely his problem, it still is solely his rightquote>

I didn't mention rights anywhere in my reply. I was referring to responsibility.

Case in point - my dad's mom broke her hip, and instead of sending her to the local "under-staffed and decaying social hospitals", they sent her to one of the best hospitals in the entire country. Could she pay for it? Heck no. The government paid for whatever her insurance wouldn't cover (which was a lot).quote>

Not every American is sent to the best health facilities in the country, as has been previously mentioned the hospital 'the bum' goes to is likely not to be a shiny hospital. Your father's mother also had some level of insurance, its incredibly doubtful the bum would have any protection whatsoever. Service is patchy and some places will provide good care and others will not.

The bum is unlikely to be in an area which a fantastic and world class hospital, its much more likely he will stumble into a social hospital.

Americans may not want to pay more to help the uninsured...but you do already and will continue to. The costs of treating the uninsured are passed onto insurance holders or through higher taxation, so you are already paying to treat the poor and uninsured.

The private insurance scheme itself is under pressure as less employers are providing the service given the vast costs and something which is unsustainable given the outlook for the American economy. Reform will have to happen at some point, Americans just need to decide when.

his has nothing to do with government health policy and everything to do with an invention called fast-foodquote>

Which our government is starting to deal with, limits on fats, salts and sugars in children's food, stricter guidelines on food served to children at schools, much improved food labelling as well as a new policy looking at the food served to children at tourist attractions and requiring it to meet the same guidelines as school meals in addition to other measures.

[hym 358]

Americans may not want to pay more to help the uninsured...but you do already and will continue to. The costs of treating the uninsured are passed onto insurance holders or through higher taxation, so you are already paying to treat the poor and uninsured.quote>

Or...they are paid out of charity funds that are filled by the good will of individuals who know that others can't pay for their treatment, so they will step up and donate money to the hospital so that it has the financial means to treat "the bum" for no cost.

A few come to mind:

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center

Memorial Hermann

St. John's Mercy

There are plenty others like them.  They get their money from the payment of those who can afford their medical treatment and from the generousity of those who know others can't and want to help.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

While it may not being solely his problem, it still is solely his rightquote>

I didn't mention rights anywhere in my reply. I was referring to responsibility. quote>

The problem there is that responsibility is subjective.  One person's idea of being responsible is another person's idea of slacking off.  Who gets to decide the standards?  And like it or not, the government dictating what you are and aren't responsible for is interfering with a person's rights.  Some of it is unavoidable, but most things that could be considered social responsibilities are highly subjective.

Case in point - my dad's mom broke her hip, and instead of sending her to the local "under-staffed and decaying social hospitals", they sent her to one of the best hospitals in the entire country. Could she pay for it? Heck no. The government paid for whatever her insurance wouldn't cover (which was a lot).quote>

Not every American is sent to the best health facilities in the country, as has been previously mentioned the hospital 'the bum' goes to is likely not to be a shiny hospital. Your father's mother also had some level of insurance, its incredibly doubtful the bum would have any protection whatsoever. Service is patchy and some places will provide good care and others will not.

The bum is unlikely to be in an area which a fantastic and world class hospital, its much more likely he will stumble into a social hospital. quote>

Which is a matter of fact on where the person lives.  It is inevitable, whether in the UK, or the US, or any other modern nation, that various areas are going to have access to better or worse standards of services.  And FYI, most any hospital worth its salt (which will basically be all of them) will most likely go through some sort of accrediting process, and while I don't know where this idea of a decaying social hospital comes from, I can say for a fact that no such place would ever pass an accrediting process.  Said bum can go to probably any hospital in the nation and get a level of care comparable to anything he could get in the UK or any other modern nation, and if he couldn't get it there, the hospital would most likely send him some place where he could.

As for my dad's mom having some level of insurance, I can also guarantee that EMS workers life-flighting someone to a hospital don't care if you have insurance or not.  The only thing they cared about was the fact that they had a 95 year old woman who appeared to have broken her hip.

And out of curiosity, would you mind giving an example of a "social hospital" because I'm not aware of any such institution in the US that fits the image in my mind, except for charitable health clinics.

Americans may not want to pay more to help the uninsured...but you do already and will continue to. The costs of treating the uninsured are passed onto insurance holders or through higher taxation, so you are already paying to treat the poor and uninsured. quote>

Tis true.

The private insurance scheme itself is under pressure as less employers are providing the service given the vast costs and something which is unsustainable given the outlook for the American economy. Reform will have to happen at some point, Americans just need to decide when.quote>

Unsustainable - I highly doubt it.  The American economy has been in far worse places than this, and the insurance industry survived.  There's too much of a need for it.

his has nothing to do with government health policy and everything to do with an invention called fast-foodquote>

Which our government is starting to deal with, limits on fats,quote>

Which I seem to remember New York City doing something similar to this with banning trans fats.  Nice idea, but it's not going to get NYC any slimmer.

salts and sugars in children's food, stricter guidelines on food served to children at schools, quote>

While the degree of strictness in the guidelines is probably different, we've been doing this for a while too.  Problem is, you can't control what the people eat in their own homes.

much improved food labellingquote>

Not sure what you have in mind there, but it sounds like something more than the nutritional stats on the food.  (It's a useful thing for people who care, but how many people really care?  Not enough to make it effective on a mass-scale.)

as well as a new policy looking at the food served to children at tourist attractions and requiring it to meet the same guidelines as school meals in addition to other measures. quote>

OK, this I know we don't do.

Point still being, you can't control everything a person eats, and realistically, as long as the modern world continues to thrive on junk food like McDonald's, there's always going to be an obesity problem.  And on top of that, the vast majority of obesity cases ultimately are the result of the person's eating habits and are completely immune to regulation because there's no way to regulate them.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: Pete06

Happy Birthday NHS, but the question is can we continue with an NHS model that is at best patchy at worst totally inefficient and causing unnecessary deaths. We spend billions on health, the NHS one of the biggest organisations in the world but we still have not got the quality of our healthcare up to the average European level. Its time we look to our European neighbours and copied their system of social insurance.

Copied from http://www.westbromblog.blogspot.com/:

quote>

I agree that the model doesn't work as well as it should. It's good that Labour have doubled the budget of the NHS but inefficiency is an enourmous issue. One of the biggest issues really is targets and Labour's mentality that one size fits all for all NHS trusts. Polyclinics work in some areas, and not in others. Personally I think that localisation is the key to all good government and this is what needs to happen with the NHS, rather than sweeping targets of X from some group of civil servants and ministers in whitehall that know nothing about healthcare. Europe is definitely the place to look for a better NHS, but the NHS is still a fantastic life saving service even with all it's issue.

Isn't massachusetts implementing universal healthcare or something? I think if UHC was implemented it would have to be at state level and not Federal level, simply because obviously different states have massively different requirements?

[fukuda 351]

Public health services are made to ensure that everyone gets a decent healthcare, that's all.

On the XVth century healthare of the ones that couldn't afford it already depended on charity, public helathcare is just a logical progression and a clear sign of progress

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

 Personally I think that localisation is the key to all good government . . . .  I think if UHC was implemented it would have to be at state level and not Federal level, simply because obviously different states have massively different requirements?quote>

Bingo!  (which is another way of saying "spot on")

The needs of a large city, like New York, can be radically different from the needs of a small town in Nebraska.   and the ability to provide specialized service can be radically different. 

When you have a 1,500 square mile area with a population density of 9 people per square mile (and we do have many places like that),  there obviously isn't going to be a every kind of specialist anywhere nearby.   If the federal government mandated a certain level of coverage, there would be many areas where it simply could not happen.  Taking it from the state level, there might be a chance to approach it realistically.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

The problem there is that responsibility is subjective.  One person's idea of being responsible is another person's idea of slacking off.  Who gets to decide the standards?  And like it or not, the government dictating what you are and aren't responsible for is interfering with a person's rights.  Some of it is unavoidable, but most things that could be considered social responsibilities are highly subjective.quote>

That is the problem. And it's why you can't legislate responsibility.

Besides, you can force people to do things, but you can't force people to care. Lack of people caring is the source of a lot of America's problems, if you ask me. That, and people caring too much about silly things.

I seem to remember New York City doing something similar to this with banning trans fats.  Nice idea, but it's not going to get NYC any slimmer.quote>

The ban is not an outright ban. What it is is a strict limit on how much trans fat can be in dishes served at restaurants. And it's highly ineffective for two reasons:

1) Big chains like McDonalds are basically immune to the rule since, being franchises, the food is the same everywhere in the country and what exactly that is is decided elsewhere, so the only thening New York City could really do is tell McDonalds to change their recipes or remove all their stores from the city. And they're not going to that since they know that the former isn't hapenning and the latter is an undesirable outcome and would likely lead to a lawsuit or two.

2) It has no bearing on food sold in stores and prepared in people's homes.

So, really, it's just another case of the government doing something to gain points with people by looking like they're trying to take action but really not doing anything effective.

Not sure what you have in mind there, but it sounds like something more than the nutritional stats on the food.  (It's a useful thing for people who care, but how many people really care?  Not enough to make it effective on a mass-scale.)quote>

Requiring that nutrition facts be listed on food packaging is a good thing. Because it makes the information readily available to anyone who is concerned, but it doesn't try to control the actions of people who aren't concerned. The choice is still in the hands of the consumer.

So what if not a lot of people care and it doesn't reduce obesity rates that much. The point is to empower people to make informed decisions, not to make those decisions for them, you see.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Not sure what you have in mind there, but it sounds like something more than the nutritional stats on the food.  (It's a useful thing for people who care, but how many people really care?  Not enough to make it effective on a mass-scale.)quote>

Requiring that nutrition facts be listed on food packaging is a good thing. Because it makes the information readily available to anyone who is concerned, but it doesn't try to control the actions of people who aren't concerned. The choice is still in the hands of the consumer.

So what if not a lot of people care and it doesn't reduce obesity rates that much. The point is to empower people to make informed decisions, not to make those decisions for them, you see.quote>

Well, I wasn't advocating that we get rid of them.  I was just mentioning that not enough people really care about what they say, hence why junk food still sells so well.  People may or may not know what's in it, but they don't care enough about the 15 grams of fat (or whatever) to get them to stop eating it.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Well, I wasn't advocating that we get rid of them. I was just mentioning that not enough people really care about what they say, hence why junk food still sells so well. People may or may not know what's in it, but they don't care enough about the 15 grams of fat (or whatever) to get them to stop eating it.quote>

I actually think it does work for some people. I have stopped buying certain foods after reading the food label which are rather more concise and easy to understand in the UK. Though a uniform display graphic is still under discussion.

It does and has allowed me to look at packaging quickly and decide if it has just too much fat and sugar. It has worked on me and a lot of others becuase UK supermarkets are making a great deal of effort to promote the fact they have reduced the fats, salt and sugars and that is starting to change habits. America may be different, all countries are. But I'm simply stating the UK version.

[Duke87 1,070]

Interesting. The UK doesn't have a standard display graphic? The US does and has for quite a while.

Here's a sample of what one looks like, for those of you from across the pond:

[belfastuniguy 18]

No no..we have a standard nutritional fact label, such as the above

I'm talking about the labelling on the front of products...let me find some examples. We have two major labelling schemes. The standard GDA labels used by people such as Tesco and a Traffic Light scheme which uses GDA but colours them to detail low, medium or high levels of things such as fat and sugar.

Traffic Light Scheme

Standard

[Duke87 1,070]

Ah, okay. General  Mills has started putting something like that on boxes of cereal but I think it's just an advertisement scheme for them to show off how healthy it is. It says "nutrition highlights", and it's right next to the guarantee that the cereal is 100% whole grain. There is no such requirement of any such thing here and it's otherwise something you don't see. 

In any case, your version has done something interesting by putting per 100 g values in addition to per serving values. Companies over here have been known to make the values of things look smaller than they really are by making the serving size intentionally small, and that is an interesting solution. Still, you eat different portions of different foods, so it's not a perfectly flawless comparison.

And, well, the lack of information on vitamins and minerals is also a shortcoming.

You do win the proper metric award by putting the energy in kilojoules, though.