nhs 'in good health'

No one in the US is denied immediate medical treatment---no one!. Yes, they may have to wait in the ER if they have no insurance, but they will receive treatment.

The very fact that you have private options proves that your NHS does not work.

 

It doesn't prove that at all as very few people feel it necessary to take out a private plan.

If you have broken your arm or something you can go to A&E (accident and emergency) and wait a couple of hours to get immediate treatment.

 

Pay for insurance or get out.

These freebies from the democrats is what made me conservative.

 

So would I with the NHS. I would have an NHS ambulance to take me there too.

 

I think I'll stay in the UK where I won't have to worry about going bankrupt if I get an expensive illness, thank you.

 

you may not go bankrupt but you'll be dead.

 

The idea itself is bankrupt. It flies in the face of everything we know about science and best outcomes. It's a flat out denial of evolutionary theory.

No, you reactionary idiots, I don't mean that sick people should die.

What I mean is that the best outcomes are achieved when the greatest number of individual choices are made. When a few people have the power to limit choices for many people you inherently reduce the odds of a good choice being made. Now, I'm sure these brainiac wizards think they are making the very best choices for the most amount of people, but only the individual is able to make the best choice for themselves. The best system is the one that makes the least number of choices on behalf of the person receiving the service.

 

Please explain why I, as someone with no medical training, am better placed to make decisions for my healthcare than people with 5+ years of knowledge and expertise.

There are many people about who, given the choice, would choose strictly homeopathic treatment. These people would die from this wonderful choice.

 

2 reasons. As evolution teaches us, large numbers of random choices produce better outcomes for large groups than small numbers of choices. You don't need to know what you're doing. All you need to do is make an individual choice along with millions of other people.

The second reason is more practical. Do you really think that 10 people with 5+ years of knowledge and expertise will all make the same choice? Do you think you have the ability to choose which of those 10 opinions best suits your needs? Why? Why would 10 people with experience give you potentially 10 answers, and why would you be able to choose which is the best for you?

 

You've brought in a discourse of evolution in relation to medical matters without much explanation or reason.

So you're proposing that we view this debate in terms of evolution, for something that really goes against 'evolution'. It seems like a peculiar logic, although a good way to frame a debate and make it impossible to really challenge it.

Unless you look at how it works in reality. Where the US healthcare system with all of its choice routinely gets ranked much worse in healthcare outcomes than other systems.

I'll give one example where having lots of choice is a bad thing. Surgery. It's much better to have ONE very large hospital specialising in certain surgeries than have 5 or whatever number you want to think of. It's less choice, but the outcomes are much better.

When it comes to scientific matters there tends to be an accepted 'best option' for people depending on their circumstance (age, severity of illness, gender etc).

However, there are cases where it isn't so clear cut, and people do get to make a choice. This happens here in the UK and I don't have an issue with it.

 

Yeah, not thrilled about the 18 week wait time. I don't know why people are bragging about that.

 

No one in the US goes bankrupt because of medical expenses---that is a left wing lie. Those who can't pay, don't pay. The rest of us cover them with our insurance premiums. The difference is that we do not have a huge ineffcient govt beaurocracy to suck 30-40% of the money out of the system.

There was and is no healthcare crisis in the USA, that was another dem/lib myth that was spread in order to capture a major part of the economy for govt control.

 

Orwellian Newspeak. Mediocre = Excellent

 

Right.

http://www.policynetwork.net/sites/default/files/trouble_in_the_ranks.pdf

The rank of the outcome doesn't matter as much as the outcome. The OP is case in point. NHS has never before achieved such excellence as 18 week wait times. What a load.

Nonsense. If 1 very large specialized hospital is good, why not 3 very large specialized hospitals? The problem with 1 specialized hospital is when they screw up (and they will screw up) they make the mistake in large numbers. Ooops we installed 1000 faulty hips. Our bad.

Which is the better pathway to a cure for disease? Is one institution doing research better, or as many as possible?

And I'm telling you this trend is wrong. There is not one best option that is best for everyone. The more you narrow options, the more you bias the system toward catastrophic failure. One bad decision in a individualistic system affects 1 individual. One bad decision in a regulated system affects everyone that falls under the regulation.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-03-waittimes_N.htm