IMO NHS themselves aren't a bad idea, however they're rarely implemented well. Privatisation leads to its own problems, including limiting the population covered by hospitals, and the range of services offered. Personally I believe that the Government needs to hold the NHS at an arms length, and generally let management run it. Limiting the bureacracy to increase fluidity, and yet maintaining the ability to step in if there's a problem.

The article above is somewhat vague on the details of how much the soap costs. If the NHS looked for a soap supplier that could provide smaller bars but the unit price was higher than the current price paid for the larger bars, would anyone actually suggest that they should switch?

It is perfectly possible. After all, the smaller each bar becomes, the more packaging you have to pay for for the same net weight of soap.

Not a good example of organisation unfortunately, no. It seems that increasing spending without checking where it is going just leads to more waste.

That said, the idea of having private only healthcare has been shown in the USA to be even more horrendously expensive - it's a higher cost per head there than pretty much anywhere in the world, with standards only being marginally higher than a few places. Funny how Cuba manages to spend less and have it free for all PLUS being the highest standard in the world. There must be lessons to learn from there.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Not a good example of organisation unfortunately, no. It seems that increasing spending without checking where it is going just leads to more waste.

That said, the idea of having private only healthcare has been shown in the USA to be even more horrendously expensive - it's a higher cost per head there than pretty much anywhere in the world, with standards only being marginally higher than a few places. Funny how Cuba manages to spend less and have it free for all PLUS being the highest standard in the world. There must be lessons to learn from there.

Cuba dosnt have the highest standard, get off the fat boy Michael moore boat and look at the truth, in Cuba all have free health care, however those who reside outside the major cities have no meens to get to the Hospitals that are located in the cities, kind of pointless giving them cover but no access.....
The US system would cost less if those who REFUSE to purchase insurance would MAN UP and get it, rather than lording it over the rest of us who do the right thing and pay our way.NOTE huge numbers of the uninsured are well able to afford insurance, they choose not to and expect others to pay for them.
Then we come to the false point you made about the US system being soley private, I have, on probably HUNDREDS of occasions shown that this is a falshood, yet you still adhere to this piece of spin( as do most of those who wish to paint an untrue picture of the US system).

The next point I must address is your continues insistence that Healthcare anywhere is free, there is NO free Healthcare anywhere in the world, it is physically, practically and fiscally impossible to offer free healthcare.

I guess you will continue to ignore these facts, you hate facts that show your propeganda to be completely wrong, it is a socialist trait, the hatred of facts that is, amongst other unsavory acts.....

The standards in the USA are far higher than those of the useless and backward NHS, the hospitals for a start are clean, waiting lists are unheard of and the staff are pleasant, the NHS is complete crap and no real evidence of its cost is available because no one in the UK adds the cost of Private insurance into the pot when adding it all up.Take the amount the government spends and add to that the amount spent on private insurance by those who desire care above the usual third world standards of the NHS and you will see a far higher cost overall.
These same standards are used to measure the US cost, the same should be applied to the UK.In other words the figures have been subjected to a little doctoring on the part of the anti US organisation that made them up, the United Nations.

Originally Posted by JAMC

The article above is somewhat vague on the details of how much the soap costs. If the NHS looked for a soap supplier that could provide smaller bars but the unit price was higher than the current price paid for the larger bars, would anyone actually suggest that they should switch?

It is perfectly possible. After all, the smaller each bar becomes, the more packaging you have to pay for for the same net weight of soap.

The NHS dictates to the individual trusts who they may purchase stock from( its called Government controlled healthcare ) so even if the trust found such a supplier the government would not allow the transactions to go ahead(unless the manufacturer/ supplier had greased all the right palms in Government........)!!!!

Originally Posted by DougieG

Not a good example of organisation unfortunately, no. It seems that increasing spending without checking where it is going just leads to more waste.

That said, the idea of having private only healthcare has been shown in the USA to be even more horrendously expensive - it's a higher cost per head there than pretty much anywhere in the world, with standards only being marginally higher than a few places. Funny how Cuba manages to spend less and have it free for all PLUS being the highest standard in the world. There must be lessons to learn from there.

Free healthcare dosnt exist anywhere in the world, do desist from pushing that falshood.

The US people pay more for healthcare because they can afford it, they earn more than their old world cousins, sorry i know you dont like it but it is a fact, it costs more for a beer here too, for exactly the reason i gave above..........

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Cuba dosnt have the highest standard, get off the fat boy Michael moore boat and look at the truth, in Cuba all have free health care, however those who reside outside the major cities have no meens to get to the Hospitals that are located in the cities, kind of pointless giving them cover but no access.....
The US system would cost less if those who REFUSE to purchase insurance would MAN UP and get it, rather than lording it over the rest of us who do the right thing and pay our way.NOTE huge numbers of the uninsured are well able to afford insurance, they choose not to and expect others to pay for them.
Then we come to the false point you made about the US system being soley private, I have, on probably HUNDREDS of occasions shown that this is a falshood, yet you still adhere to this piece of spin( as do most of those who wish to paint an untrue picture of the US system).

The next point I must address is your continues insistence that Healthcare anywhere is free, there is NO free Healthcare anywhere in the world, it is physically, practically and fiscally impossible to offer free healthcare.

I guess you will continue to ignore these facts, you hate facts that show your propeganda to be completely wrong, it is a socialist trait, the hatred of facts that is, amongst other unsavory acts.....

The standards in the USA are far higher than those of the useless and backward NHS, the hospitals for a start are clean, waiting lists are unheard of and the staff are pleasant, the NHS is complete crap and no real evidence of its cost is available because no one in the UK adds the cost of Private insurance into the pot when adding it all up.Take the amount the government spends and add to that the amount spent on private insurance by those who desire care above the usual third world standards of the NHS and you will see a far higher cost overall.
These same standards are used to measure the US cost, the same should be applied to the UK.In other words the figures have been subjected to a little doctoring on the part of the anti US organisation that made them up, the United Nations.

It's entirely free at the point of delivery, and for those who cannot afford it it is free.

I'm not having this discussion with you again. It's not intellectually stimulating and inevitably ends up with you wishing death upon all poor people while I defend them for post after post. Pointless. Most UK citizens will agree with me, because we have sympathy for those worse off than us. Most Americans don't give a damn about those worse off so they prefer to **** upon them.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Free healthcare dosnt exist anywhere in the world, do desist from pushing that falshood.

The US people pay more for healthcare because they can afford it, they earn more than their old world cousins, sorry i know you dont like it but it is a fact, it costs more for a beer here too, for exactly the reason i gave above..........

You pay more because your system is an inefficient joke. Much worse than the NHS. Agreed, many US hospitals are better than UK ones, but you are paying twice the money as a nation and not getting twice the value.

EDIT: The USA also ranks below the UK in both life expectancy and happiness on all major studies. Congratulations.
EDIT 2: This graph is very interesting, not really to prove any point but it's just very well made and quite interesting to note historical changes http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/

Originally Posted by DougieG

You pay more because your system is an inefficient joke. Much worse than the NHS. Agreed, many US hospitals are better than UK ones, but you are paying twice the money as a nation and not getting twice the value.

EDIT: The USA also ranks below the UK in both life expectancy and happiness on all major studies. Congratulations.
EDIT 2: This graph is very interesting, not really to prove any point but it's just very well made and quite interesting to note historical changes Gapminder World - Gapminder.org

Life expectancy is shorter in the USA because more people work longer hours, in the UK people work part time and would leave a job half done and go home as soon as the clock struck time, in the US people are more motivated.
Happiness, you see in the UK happiness is measured by how much you can wangle from the government, the more you get the happier you are, ASBOs Give bonus points of course!!
Happiness in the USA is based on achieving your dreams, whatever they may be, many people in the USA have higher expectations in life than in the old world, many people are in a constant state of stiving to achive their dreams and then achieving beyond them. Culturally happiness cannot be measured, it can be measured by how many people leave the UK and emigrate to the USA for a better life and how few people emigrate FROM the USA to the UK( Yeah I know you got Madonna, oh but she came back here....)Didnt bother looking at your Graph, probably some more anti America propeganda, anyone can make that **** up, facts are facts though, people move from the UK to the USA in large numbers, tiny numbers of people move from the USA to the UK, simple really, people prefer the American way because it is better.
Inneficient Joke?

Waiting lists in the UK.........****ing huge, loads of them!!!!
Waiting lists in the US.........None

Income in the US...........Great
Income in the UK...........Minimum wage in a part time job, or a giro.

Car ownership in the UK........around 45%( the same level as in the 40s in the US)
Car ownership in the US.........around 70%

The US healthcare system is better, you are seen treated and cured faster in the US than in the UK, you are treated like a human being not an irritating annoying thing ruining a nice workday for the staff, again we have clean hospitals, pleasant staff, NO WAITING LISTS and lets not forget.........Individual size soap bars because there is no government doctrine controlling care.

Originally Posted by DougieG

It's entirely free at the point of delivery, and for those who cannot afford it it is free.

I'm not having this discussion with you again. It's not intellectually stimulating and inevitably ends up with you wishing death upon all poor people while I defend them for post after post. Pointless. Most UK citizens will agree with me, because we have sympathy for those worse off than us. Most Americans don't give a damn about those worse off so they prefer to **** upon them.

LIAR i have never wished death on the poor, that is a lie, a personal attack an offensive staement and basically another aspect of you using your status as a Moderator to bully members who disagree with you.

The US is the most charitable country in the world.
I defend the poor, you wish to controll them.I would allow them freedom and choice, you would allow them what you decide was good for them cos they too stupid to wipe there own arses in your opinion.
You hate the poor and the workers it is obvious in every post you make, all socialists hate the poor, capitalists respect the poor and allow them the freedom to escape poverty by their own efforts, its called respect, you have none, i respect every living creature on earth, you respect your socialist masters.

Show evidence of Americans ****ting on people or admit to your falsifications and charecter assasination and personal grudges!!!

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Life expectancy is shorter in the USA because more people work longer hours, in the UK people work part time and would leave a job half done and go home as soon as the clock struck time, in the US people are more motivated.

Americans don't live long, because you are the fattest nation in the world and have a terrible health system.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._time_2004.jpg

This is a graph of Annual work hours (source: OECD (2004), OECD in Figures, OECD, Paris. Are you sure Yanks are the hardest workers?

Originally Posted by pauli007001

it can be measured by how many people leave the UK and emigrate to the USA for a better life and how few people emigrate FROM the USA to the UK

Then NZ must be a really happy place aye Pauli because both both Brits and Yanks flock here. The numbers of people with American accents here gets bigger by the day.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Waiting lists in the UK.........****ing huge, loads of them!!!!
Waiting lists in the US.........None

Top quality health care is available to all in the UK, that is why there are waiting lists. health care for many in the us is based on what you can afford in the US. Poor people can't afford to go to private hospitals, and there are alot of poor people in the USA.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Income in the US...........Great
Income in the UK...........Minimum wage in a part time job, or a giro.

Lol, you can be so stupid sometimes. The USA has some of the highest income disparities in the western world. If incomes in the US are so high why do you have slums. The average income here is lower than in the US and yet poor people in NZ generally live in paces like

http://www.unconditional.co.nz/chris...8/12/state.jpg


http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...ronx.large.jpg

^ Poor in the USA.





So then why do your poor live in slums and ours live in acceptable homes?

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Car ownership in the UK........around 45%( the same level as in the 40s in the US)
Car ownership in the US.........around 70%

Europe has better public transport than the USA, also the older cities are more compact than alot of newer American cities.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

The US healthcare system is better

So your perception is superior to the actual information?

Originally Posted by pauli007001

The NHS dictates to the individual trusts who they may purchase stock from( its called Government controlled healthcare )

It's called public sector procurement - all large organisations have a similar arrangement in place, and if done properly it can drive costs down dramatically by leveraging economies of scale. The company I work for is no different - if all the 20,000 employees were allowed to buy pens (i.e. something every office needs) for themselves the net result would be expensive confusion; as each team found it's own supplier and placed small orders. Using the size of the NHS properly as a bargaining chip is a contributing factor to the disparity of costs between mostly-public and mostly-private healthcare systems. As a result healthcare consumes 8% of GDP in Britain, and 15% in the United States.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

so even if the trust found such a supplier the government would not allow the transactions to go ahead(unless the manufacturer/ supplier had greased all the right palms in Government........)!!!!

Having actually met and spoken at length to people who do this job within the NHS (procurement activities aren't carried out by the trusts but by a seperate dept), the idea that MPs interfere with the choice of supplier based on kickbacks is completely baseless. In practice the only involvement from the on high is the overriding pressure to find the lowest base unit price.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Americans don't live long, because you are the fattest nation in the world and have a terrible health system.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._time_2004.jpg

This is a graph of Annual work hours (source: OECD (2004), OECD in Figures, OECD, Paris. Are you sure Yanks are the hardest workers?








Then NZ must be a really happy place aye Pauli because both both Brits and Yanks flock here. The numbers of people with American accents here gets bigger by the day.




Top quality health care is available to all in the UK, that is why there are waiting lists. health care for many in the us is based on what you can afford in the US. Poor people can't afford to go to private hospitals, and there are alot of poor people in the USA.



Lol, you can be so stupid sometimes. The USA has some of the highest income disparities in the western world. If incomes in the US are so high why do you have slums. The average income here is lower than in the US and yet poor people in NZ generally live in paces like

http://www.unconditional.co.nz/chris...8/12/state.jpg


http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...ronx.large.jpg

^ Poor in the USA.





So then why do your poor live in slums and ours live in acceptable homes?




Europe has better public transport than the USA, also the older cities are more compact than alot of newer American cities.




So your perception is superior to the actual information?

First point, your baseless and untrue attack against Americans.America is not the fattest country in the world, a country cannot be fat, a country is an inanimate object, a bit of real estate, inanimate objects like stones, countrys and garages can be neither fat or thin.


Second i said thet Americans(your use of the racist epiteth "Yank" is noted as evidence of your hate) worked longer hours than those in the UK(specifically the UK but also the rest of the EUSSR) and your graph shows this to be a fact.In the US the motivation of the workers is higher than most other nations, productivity is higher and hoyrs put in to get the job done is also higher.You forget that i have seen the difference between the UK and the USA on a personal note, you read it in a book or on a blog, is the virtual world now more realistic than the actual world?


I will note that many US citizens have vacation homes in NZ and that many UK citizens move to NZ primarily because the UK has been turned to **** by NULAB, the term used to describe the phenomenon of masses of UK residents leaving has been called "white Flight" as a result of the govenments policies.It is a form of Ethnic cleansing in order to purchase votes from the minorities(soon to be majority).

Income Disparity is due to the laziness and irrisponsibility of the poor in the USA, the poor who live in slums are lazy, the slums are good enough for them, if they want to get out of the slums they should work harder, its the American way, i work hard and as a result i have 2 nice homes in the Boston area, a house in Melrose and a condo in the city, i also have a Boat and a cottage in Sandwich MA(cape cod) and a small hunting cabin in Maine(set in 270 acres of wood land).I achieved this in 2 years of manual labour, if the poor want to do it also why cant they?
My Brother in law has a life of real luxuary that he has built from his roofing buisness, roofing!! you could teach a Monkey to shingle a roof, so why dont the poot get off their lazy asses and start roofing, or digging instead of doing nothing and whining about the injustice of life.If an immigrant like me, who as you have said is "stupid" can make a go of it in the USA why cant a slum dwelling idle bum get up and do the same too?
Even for an easy job, i have a mate, former CSM in the Kenyan Army who earns up to $50 bucks an hour polishing brass door knobs, door plates and brass plaques, he too is self employed, again an easy job(bit repetitive but polishing stuff is quite rewarding, any cleaning is, i love to see the result of a good old cleaning, great job satisfaction in a job well done).

Europe dosnt have a better transport system at all, and in my experience it is more expensive(250 quid to get from London to Huddersfield by train, $59 from NY to boston and the distance is about the same, a Bus from London to Huddersfield costs 75 quid a bus from NY to Boston costs $10 or $15 bucks, and this is a private company).When you totalitarian types describe your transport or health systems as better what you meen is not of a higher standard or for a better price By better you mean Government run.

Experience of the US system is a far greater indicator of its superiority than reading a blog about it, written by some socialist propeganda purvayor.

Now look at the slums in the UK for comparison.

Originally Posted by JAMC

It's called public sector procurement - all large organisations have a similar arrangement in place, and if done properly it can drive costs down dramatically by leveraging economies of scale. The company I work for is no different - if all the 20,000 employees were allowed to buy pens (i.e. something every office needs) for themselves the net result would be expensive confusion; as each team found it's own supplier and placed small orders. Using the size of the NHS properly as a bargaining chip is a contributing factor to the disparity of costs between mostly-public and mostly-private healthcare systems. As a result healthcare consumes 8% of GDP in Britain, and 15% in the United States.

Having actually met and spoken at length to people who do this job within the NHS (procurement activities aren't carried out by the trusts but by a seperate dept), the idea that MPs interfere with the choice of supplier based on kickbacks is completely baseless. In practice the only involvement from the on high is the overriding pressure to find the lowest base unit price.

I know I've posted this link before and it ended the argument on the thread, but this idea of the NHS being the worst example of medicare is nonsense. Although not perfect by any means it's the "best in the world". Source?, an American think tank. Ex pats are the worst whingers about Britain on the planet especially those in Spain in receipt of the cold weather allowance sunning themselves on the beach. Second to those are whingeing expat Aussies. They all have to give a reason for emigrating and never mention the weather.


NHS 'beats America's private healthcare' - mirror.co.uk

Originally Posted by Expounder

I know I've posted this before and it ended the argument on the thread, but this idea of the NHS being the worst example of medicare is nonsense. Although not perfect by any means it's the "best in the world". Source?, an American think tank. Ex pats are the worst wingers about Britain on the planet especially those in Spain in receipt of the cold weather allowance sunning themselves on the beach. Second to those are whingeing expat Aussies. They all have to give a reason for emigrating and never mention the weather.
NHS 'beats America's private healthcare' - mirror.co.uk

Err... was this meant to be directed at pauli?

Originally Posted by JAMC

Err... was this meant to be directed at pauli?

I know mate, apologies I'm sorry to have posted my comment which looks like a reply to yours it wasn't meant as a criticism of what you wrote [which incidentally I agree with]. The NHS saga has been flogged to death and I wanted to get the link posted again without getting involved in a futile discussion with my old friend Pauli................Regards Exp.

Originally Posted by JAMC

It's called public sector procurement - all large organisations have a similar arrangement in place, and if done properly it can drive costs down dramatically by leveraging economies of scale. The company I work for is no different - if all the 20,000 employees were allowed to buy pens (i.e. something every office needs) for themselves the net result would be expensive confusion; as each team found it's own supplier and placed small orders. Using the size of the NHS properly as a bargaining chip is a contributing factor to the disparity of costs between mostly-public and mostly-private healthcare systems. As a result healthcare consumes 8% of GDP in Britain, and 15% in the United States.

Having actually met and spoken at length to people who do this job within the NHS (procurement activities aren't carried out by the trusts but by a seperate dept), the idea that MPs interfere with the choice of supplier based on kickbacks is completely baseless. In practice the only involvement from the on high is the overriding pressure to find the lowest base unit price.

At a regional level parts of the procurement function of the NHS are unbelievably incompetent. For a considerable number of years I was the major shareholder and CEO of a reasonably substantial company which supplied and serviced reprographic equipment. Our customer base included both private and public sector organisations, including sections of the NHS. Apart from specifications for equipment which were inappropriate for purpose, resulting in a requirement for early upgrade, the period over which equipment was financed was invariably the longest available and bore little relationship to the life expectancy of equipment or project. All this contributed handsomely to my companies bottom line but such incompetence in the procurement function whilst common in the public sector, was rare in the private sector.

I do agree that this was straightforward incompetence and had nothing whatever to do with dishonest practices, which in my experience were rare, and not something my company would have entertained in any event.

My own view is that if the administration and financial management and clerical functions within the NHS had even half the professionalism, work practice flexibility and commitment of the nursing, clinical, technical and surgical staff it could contribute so much more to national healthcare with no cost increase, or alternatively supply the present level of care for appreciably less taxpayer pounds.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Most UK citizens will agree with me, because we have sympathy for those worse off than us. Most Americans don't give a damn about those worse off so they prefer to **** upon them.

That is nothing more than an inflammatory generalization bearing no truth and I suspect you know it. I would expect better. Below are some numbers on charitable giving in the US, from 2006 and 2007, the latest I could find in a quick search.

Charitable Donations by Americans Reach Record High

The Raw Story | US charity donations hit 2007 record despite soft economy

Originally Posted by Don

That is nothing more than an inflammatory generalization bearing no truth and I suspect you know it. I would expect better. Below are some numbers on charitable giving in the US, from 2006 and 2007, the latest I could find in a quick search.

Charitable Donations by Americans Reach Record High

The Raw Story | US charity donations hit 2007 record despite soft economy

Whilst Dougie's post might be provocative and something of a generalisation, I think that there is an element of truth in it.

There was considerable charitable giving in the low taxed environment if Victorian Britain. I for one would be unwilling to swap even the still less than ideal society we have now for the level of social care which existed then. Having witnessed the predominant American attitude toward the introduction of a government health care system for the 42m Americans who have no health insurance, I am of the opinion that the American Society as a whole is uncaring and not collectively socially responsible. I don't dispute the high level of charitable donation, both corporate and individual, in the USA but is this really the way a modern socially responsible society should care for those who are unable to care for themselves? I personally don't think so.

I don't for a moment think we have got it right here in the UK. We are over taxed, there is considerable waste of taxpayers funds, a lack of accountability within the whole of the public sector, abuse and fraud by an unacceptably large proportion of benefit claimants, and overall a government which for thirteen years has been both unwilling and unable to control any of these failures.

Nevertheless I feel far more comfortable in terms of meeting my social responsibilities and obligations living in the UK, than I would in the States. I am not some bleeding heart liberal, but a strong believer in a capitalist system, but one which incorporates a statutory social obligation to provide support for those in society unable to support themselves in terms of health, education and welfare support.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Whilst Dougie's post might be provocative and something of a generalisation, I think that there is an element of truth in it.

There was considerable charitable giving in the low taxed environment if Victorian Britain. I for one would be unwilling to swap even the still less than ideal society we have now for the level of social care which existed then. Having witnessed the predominant American attitude toward the introduction of a government health care system for the 42m Americans who have no health insurance, I am of the opinion that the American Society as a whole is uncaring and not collectively socially responsible. I don't dispute the high level of charitable donation, both corporate and individual, in the USA but is this really the way a modern socially responsible society should care for those who are unable to care for themselves? I personally don't think so.

I don't for a moment think we have got it right here in the UK. We are over taxed, there is considerable waste of taxpayers funds, a lack of accountability within the whole of the public sector, abuse and fraud by an unacceptably large proportion of benefit claimants, and overall a government which for thirteen years has been both unwilling and unable to control any of these failures.

Nevertheless I feel far more comfortable in terms of meeting my social responsibilities and obligations living in the UK, than I would in the States. I am not some bleeding heart liberal, but a strong believer in a capitalist system, but one which incorporates a statutory social obligation to provide support for those in society unable to support themselves in terms of health, education and welfare support.

Forgive me, but I think you misunderstand the argument against the current two bills in Congress. The major resistance is not against a new health care bill/reform, but against the proposals as they now stand. Most Americans agree that something needs to be done, the difference in opinion is what and how. It has become a matter of a rush to judgment being shoved down our throats vs a well thought and ordered approach. If the two proposals in Congress are so great and all Americans should be subject to it, why then are members of Congress to be exempt from it. Could it be they know something the rest of us don't?

Our biggest problem in the current U.S. system is run away cost for the system we now have.

Give this a quick read and you'll get the idea;

McAllen, Texas and the high cost of health care : The New Yorker

If we got a handle on problems such as that, and they exist all across the country, we would have little problem paying for health care for those who can't afford insurance vs the sizable number who simply do not want to pay for insurance because they look upon insurance as a gamble, which essentially it is.

As to Dougie's comment, opposition to a health care bill as I have stated above is not evidence of Americans desire or willingness to **** on the poor.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

At a regional level parts of the procurement function of the NHS are unbelievably incompetent. For a considerable number of years I was the major shareholder and CEO of a reasonably substantial company which supplied and serviced reprographic equipment. Our customer base included both private and public sector organisations, including sections of the NHS. Apart from specifications for equipment which were inappropriate for purpose, resulting in a requirement for early upgrade, the period over which equipment was financed was invariably the longest available and bore little relationship to the life expectancy of equipment or project. All this contributed handsomely to my companies bottom line but such incompetence in the procurement function whilst common in the public sector, was rare in the private sector.

I do agree that this was straightforward incompetence and had nothing whatever to do with dishonest practices, which in my experience were rare, and not something my company would have entertained in any event.

My own view is that if the administration and financial management and clerical functions within the NHS had even half the professionalism, work practice flexibility and commitment of the nursing, clinical, technical and surgical staff it could contribute so much more to national healthcare with no cost increase, or alternatively supply the present level of care for appreciably less taxpayer pounds.

Roughly how many years ago was this? I believe there was a time when the support functions within the NHS (and the public sector in general) were a shambles, but the game has been significantly upped since then.

Originally Posted by Don

Forgive me, but I think you misunderstand the argument against the current two bills in Congress. The major resistance is not against a new health care bill/reform, but against the proposals as they now stand. Most Americans agree that something needs to be done, the difference in opinion is what and how. It has become a matter of a rush to judgment being shoved down our throats vs a well thought and ordered approach.

There is some validity to this. If I were living in the US, I would be opposed to the proposals as they're laid out - not because I didn't want changes to be made, but because the changes being offered are 3rd rate, watered-down nonsense that ultimately benefit no-one.

Making participation in a broken system compulsory (which is basically what's being proposed as I understand it) without fixing the core problem of market forces driving costs up is perhaps the worst possible thing that could happen. If Obama had any balls, he'd have simply steamrollered over congress and the senate, and took an unadulterated proposal that might actually work straight to the American people with the message; "Here's my proposal on how to fix this, either get behind it or continue to endure the status quo".

Originally Posted by JAMC

Roughly how many years ago was this? I believe there was a time when the support functions within the NHS (and the public sector in general) were a shambles, but the game has been significantly upped since then.

You make a fair point. My last experience of regional NHS procurement was in the region of five years ago. At the time my company was part of a national consortium which supplied the NHS under a national supply contract. There was however sufficient regional flexibility to allow for poor judgement on the the part of the NHS.

Originally Posted by JAMC

Roughly how many years ago was this? I believe there was a time when the support functions within the NHS (and the public sector in general) were a shambles, but the game has been significantly upped since then.

I believe the shambles you refer to JAMC were prevalent at their worst during the reign of Margaret Thatcher who by slight of hand underfunded the NHS, which in my opinion, resulted in the deaths of countless patients who were unable to get treatment in time.

Too much time is spent on saving money, and not enough on saving lives. There will always be and must be a certain margin of waste in an organisation as large as the NHS in order for it to operate and save lives. The Tories will use this margin to pare funding down to the bone making it impossible to deal with unexpected emergencies and research.

Originally Posted by Expounder

I believe the shambles you refer to JAMC were prevalent at their worst during the reign of Margaret Thatcher who by slight of hand underfunded the NHS, which in my opinion, resulted in the deaths of countless patients who were unable to get treatment in time.

Public services in general were in a dire state in the 80's and early 90's, which is perhaps to be expected when you consider that the government of the day didn't believe public services should exist to begin with.

Originally Posted by JAMC

Public services in general were in a dire state in the 80's and early 90's, which is perhaps to be expected when you consider that the government of the day didn't believe public services should exist to begin with.

My own personal experience of the procurement incompetence within the NHS extended from the early nineties until around 2004. I have no personal experience either before 1993 or after 2004. From acquaintances and friends involved within the NHS, financial controls continue to be lax, administration excessively bureaucratic and working practices inflexible.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

My own personal experience of the procurement incompetence within the NHS extended from the early nineties until around 2004. I have no personal experience either before 1993 or after 2004. From acquaintances and friends involved within the NHS, financial controls continue to be lax, administration excessively bureaucratic and working practices inflexible.

Well that's a convenient excuse Major, not remembering the NHS under Thatcher? I suggest you do some independent in depth research. Youve been fighting her corner without having experienced the results of her policies.

Originally Posted by Expounder

Well that's a convenient excuse Major, not remembering the NHS under Thatcher? I suggest you do some independent in depth research. Youve been fighting her corner without having experienced the results of her policies.

It is a shame that you are unable to read what is actually written, rather than what you want to be written. Had you read my previous post on the same subject you would have known that I was referring to personal experience of supplying the NHS. It is not an excuse, convenient or otherwise, that I had no experience before 1993, because I didn't secure a contract to supply the NHS until that year.

Born in 1952 I experienced those wonderful years under Margaret Thatcher, when she inspired a generation of entrepreneurs who then created wealth and job opportunities for the nation, when she protected British possessions in a legal war based on truth and national pride, when she smashed the national thuggery and blackmail of the treacherous Scargill and the NUM. A woman of charisma, principle, intelligence, ability and inspiration. Perhaps the only down side was that she went to a state grammar school, rather than Eton or one of the other great public schools, where so many of our greatest political leaders, army generals, business leaders were educated. It only started to go so wrong in 1997.

Whatever happens in the General Election we can all be relieved that a wax cat will freeze in hell before Labour gets an overall majority!

Whilst browsing some news links earlier I can across a very interesting snippet of information contained in an article concerning stopping the NHS funding homeopathy (which I quite agree with, although a totally different topic); This said, and I quote from The Guardian:-

"Nobody knows exactly how much the NHS spends on homeopathy. The Department of Health does not keep figures, although the health minister, Mike O'Brien, told the committee during an evidence-taking session that it was probably around or a little less than the figure of £12m over three years he had read in the Guardian.

However, said the committee's report, "it appears that these figures do not include maintenance and running costs of the homeopathic hospitals or the £20m spent on refurbishing the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital between 2002 and 2005." [The emphasis is mine.]

It's not just homeopathy that no-one seems to know the spending on. A year or so ago I spend a fair time trying to find out exactly how much the NHS did cost us British Taxpayers, and I was amazed to find that there didn't seem to be any once single source of this information, let alone any detailed cost breakdown. There didn't even seem to be any figure for how much was funded from national insurance contributions, how much was funded from general taxation or how much was funded from elsewhere. With such wonderfully vague financial information, it's no wonder that the massive waste and cost overruns we're seeing are a daily occurrence!

Originally Posted by Don

Forgive me, but I think you misunderstand the argument against the current two bills in Congress. The major resistance is not against a new health care bill/reform, but against the proposals as they now stand. Most Americans agree that something needs to be done, the difference in opinion is what and how. It has become a matter of a rush to judgment being shoved down our throats vs a well thought and ordered approach. If the two proposals in Congress are so great and all Americans should be subject to it, why then are members of Congress to be exempt from it. Could it be they know something the rest of us don't?

Our biggest problem in the current U.S. system is run away cost for the system we now have.

Give this a quick read and you'll get the idea;

McAllen, Texas and the high cost of health care : The New Yorker

If we got a handle on problems such as that, and they exist all across the country, we would have little problem paying for health care for those who can't afford insurance vs the sizable number who simply do not want to pay for insurance because they look upon insurance as a gamble, which essentially it is.

As to Dougie's comment, opposition to a health care bill as I have stated above is not evidence of Americans desire or willingness to **** on the poor.

I do not presume to know more about your country's health care problems than you. However isn't the present watered down and ambiguous proposed legislation the direct result of sustained and intransigent opposition from not only the Republicans but also from a large number of Democrats? I am fully prepared to be corrected if I am wrong.

The NHS in the UK is in my opinion an excellent organisation at the point of providing care for acute and serious chronic conditions. It is however poorly managed financially and administratively and therefore costs far more than it should. This is always the danger with public organisations were there is a systemic lack of individual accountability and the belief that that taxpayer funds are limitless. However this doesn't invalidate the social benefits of a national health service.

Originally Posted by DougieG

It's entirely free at the point of delivery, and for those who cannot afford it it is free.
I'm not having this discussion with you again. It's not intellectually stimulating and inevitably ends up with you wishing death upon all poor people while I defend them for post after post. Pointless. Most UK citizens will agree with me, because we have sympathy for those worse off than us. Most Americans don't give a damn about those worse off so they prefer to **** upon them.

Hi,

I guess your comments are based on your experience of both systems.

The NHS is by no means free and though free at the point of delivery its mismanagement due to the destruction of the concept by Aneurin Bevan has led to the steady decline in quality and escallation in costs of the NHS - PROBABLY one of the most callously missmanaged businesses in the world - beset with a massive kleptocratic QUANGOcracy.

The free hospitals in America are by and large excellent as far as I could ascertain - once it is established that you qualify.

Most UK citizens will indeed agree with you as clearly they have little or no experience of other alternatives and have been largely propagandised from birth.

In fact the disparity of income is based on a distortion of the figures in that rarely do the 40,000 unemployes who live in trailer parks outside Houston alone and their ilk feature or for that matter figure.

The poverty in America is widespread and absolute.

I have found most American far more caring of their poor than I have noticed in Britain where the banality of conversation is stunning and the shrug of shoulders and attitude of 'why don't they ....' is all too common with the obscene socialist indifference to basic responsibility of the individual.

Let us hope at the fall of New Labour be that Brown or Cameron these United Kingdoms can be liberated from the malevolent vassal status in the EU and in liberty strive to rejoin the standards and values of The Anglosphere.

Standards that would seem to have collapsed in the years of Labour during the 1970s when economic illiteracy of the then Government bankrupt the country as have Blair & Brown once again!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by DougieG

You pay more because your system is an inefficient joke.

I believe that you will find this comment far from accurate on two counts - firstly the cost is a comparison in America with the cost of Health Care whereas in Britain with an unhypothecated and fractured NHS not including either private health care, insurance and externalised costs were these included I believe the criticism would be hard to stand up - do you include Nursing homes? The NHS is selective about this and hugely fudges the figures.

On the point of 'inefficient joke' - have you looked at The NHS as a model for failure being used to hide unemployment figures using entire wards for housing the societies failures and bed blocking due to gross inefficiency in Labour's SS making up a huge part of a particularly sick joke, the cleanliness issue is also laughable and as for drug availability there are many third world countries with better cancer drugs.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Much worse than the NHS.

I regret that in reality I believe you would find this hard to substantiate.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Agreed, many US hospitals are better than UK ones,

Quite shockingly better in some instances!

Originally Posted by DougieG

but you are paying twice the money as a nation and not getting twice the value.

I incline to believe this is untrue were we to compare like with like but clearly there is huge scope for improvement in both systems and Obama is trying whereas no one is trying in Britain as the post code lottery for survival spreads as the system collapses under the weight of the parasitic QUANGOcracy put in place since 1997 so deleteriously.

Originally Posted by DougieG

EDIT: The USA also ranks below the UK in both life expectancy and happiness on all major studies. Congratulations.

In life expectancy in the US is adversly effected by the harshness of the climate in some areas relative to Britain but even more by the influx of Latinos and endemic disease.

As for happiness that is hugely to do with the fact that America is indubitably more aspirant than the prevalent complacency of Britain.

Originally Posted by DougieG

EDIT 2: This graph is very interesting, not really to prove any point but it's just very well made and quite interesting to note historical changes Gapminder World - Gapminder.org

Well I guess it takes all sorts but I found it twee and near useless for any real comparative data with no clear scale and less fact - an expensive piece of software, at a guess, and no doubt produced by some half wit scientist justifying a grant in return for prostituting his name to the hokum of the IPCC Report of the UN!!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

It is a shame that you are unable to read what is actually written, rather than what you want to be written. Had you read my previous post on the same subject you would have known that I was referring to personal experience of supplying the NHS. It is not an excuse, convenient or otherwise, that I had no experience before 1993, because I didn't secure a contract to supply the NHS until that year.

Born in 1952 I experienced those wonderful years under Margaret Thatcher, when she inspired a generation of entrepreneurs who then created wealth and job opportunities for the nation, when she protected British possessions in a legal war based on truth and national pride, when she smashed the national thuggery and blackmail of the treacherous Scargill and the NUM. A woman of charisma, principle, intelligence, ability and inspiration. Perhaps the only down side was that she went to a state grammar school, rather than Eton or one of the other great public schools, where so many of our greatest political leaders, army generals, business leaders were educated. It only started to go so wrong in 1997.

Whatever happens in the General Election we can all be relieved that a wax cat will freeze in hell before Labour gets an overall majority!

Ha Ha, LOL you do actually believe it................................................ .................

Originally Posted by Expounder

Ha Ha, LOL you do actually believe it................................................ .................

Marginally tongue in cheek, but it is an accurate reflection of the blinkered and bigoted support which you provide to the most incompetent and corrupt government we have had since WWII.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

....the most incompetent and corrupt government we have had since WWII.

Ach now do I have to list the sleaze and illegal activity found amongst John Major's Ministers? You don't need to go back as far as 1945 to find a worse government, you only need rewind the clock fourteen years!

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Ach now do I have to list the sleaze and illegal activity found amongst John Major's Ministers? You don't need to go back as far as 1945 to find a worse government, you only need rewind the clock fourteen years!

I did wonder if I might not get away with that one. You are right that Major's administration was fairly sleazy and whilst I do recall the lies and lack of any integrity on the part of certain ministers, notably Jonathan Aitken and Jefferey Archer, and also the lack of any cohesive forward direction I really don't accept that they were as consistently incompetent as this government have been, nor that they damaged the social and economic fabric of the country to the extent that Labour have. As a point of interest the general election in 1997 was only the second time in my life that I did not vote Conservative in either a by-election or general election. They didn't deserve to be re-elected then any more than Labour do now.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

I do not presume to know more about your country's health care problems than you. However isn't the present watered down and ambiguous proposed legislation the direct result of sustained and intransigent opposition from not only the Republicans but also from a large number of Democrats? I am fully prepared to be corrected if I am wrong.

The NHS in the UK is in my opinion an excellent organisation at the point of providing care for acute and serious chronic conditions. It is however poorly managed financially and administratively and therefore costs far more than it should. This is always the danger with public organisations were there is a systemic lack of individual accountability and the belief that that taxpayer funds are limitless. However this doesn't invalidate the social benefits of a national health service.

Excellent waiting lists and rationing!!!

Originally Posted by pauli007001

First point, your baseless and untrue attack against Americans.America is not the fattest country in the world, a country cannot be fat, a country is an inanimate object, a bit of real estate, inanimate objects like stones, countrys and garages can be neither fat or thin.


Second i said thet Americans(your use of the racist epiteth "Yank" is noted as evidence of your hate) worked longer hours than those in the UK(specifically the UK but also the rest of the EUSSR) and your graph shows this to be a fact.In the US the motivation of the workers is higher than most other nations, productivity is higher and hoyrs put in to get the job done is also higher.You forget that i have seen the difference between the UK and the USA on a personal note, you read it in a book or on a blog, is the virtual world now more realistic than the actual world?


I will note that many US citizens have vacation homes in NZ and that many UK citizens move to NZ primarily because the UK has been turned to **** by NULAB, the term used to describe the phenomenon of masses of UK residents leaving has been called "white Flight" as a result of the govenments policies.It is a form of Ethnic cleansing in order to purchase votes from the minorities(soon to be majority).

Income Disparity is due to the laziness and irrisponsibility of the poor in the USA, the poor who live in slums are lazy, the slums are good enough for them, if they want to get out of the slums they should work harder, its the American way, i work hard and as a result i have 2 nice homes in the Boston area, a house in Melrose and a condo in the city, i also have a Boat and a cottage in Sandwich MA(cape cod) and a small hunting cabin in Maine(set in 270 acres of wood land).I achieved this in 2 years of manual labour, if the poor want to do it also why cant they?
My Brother in law has a life of real luxuary that he has built from his roofing buisness, roofing!! you could teach a Monkey to shingle a roof, so why dont the poot get off their lazy asses and start roofing, or digging instead of doing nothing and whining about the injustice of life.If an immigrant like me, who as you have said is "stupid" can make a go of it in the USA why cant a slum dwelling idle bum get up and do the same too?
Even for an easy job, i have a mate, former CSM in the Kenyan Army who earns up to $50 bucks an hour polishing brass door knobs, door plates and brass plaques, he too is self employed, again an easy job(bit repetitive but polishing stuff is quite rewarding, any cleaning is, i love to see the result of a good old cleaning, great job satisfaction in a job well done).

Europe dosnt have a better transport system at all, and in my experience it is more expensive(250 quid to get from London to Huddersfield by train, $59 from NY to boston and the distance is about the same, a Bus from London to Huddersfield costs 75 quid a bus from NY to Boston costs $10 or $15 bucks, and this is a private company).When you totalitarian types describe your transport or health systems as better what you meen is not of a higher standard or for a better price By better you mean Government run.

Experience of the US system is a far greater indicator of its superiority than reading a blog about it, written by some socialist propeganda purvayor.

Now look at the slums in the UK for comparison.

No Answer KIWI, guess you cannot argue against the truth, The US system of health and life in general is better than Totalitarianism.
Here all have the same Opportunities and the freedom to go and get em, its called empowerment.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

The NHS dictates to the individual trusts who they may purchase stock from( its called Government controlled healthcare ) so even if the trust found such a supplier the government would not allow the transactions to go ahead(unless the manufacturer/ supplier had greased all the right palms in Government........)!!!!

False, I should know, I work for the NHS these days. The ONLY dictate is that all medical equipment used in the treatment of patients is standardised and sourced via NHS Logistics, this includes bed linen, medical dressings, wipes etc etc etc. Bars of soap are not supplied by NHS logistics, they are bought by the purchasing department of the respective NHS Trust.

I would very strongly urge you not to argue that point Pauli as I clearly know what you do not and on this I will not tolerate bull and crap from you. The NHS is not in a good state, but this is not only down to the NHS, it is down to how the Government force it to manage itself and how the public respond. My Trust wanted to build a complete new hospital at a cost of £750 million. They did all the legwork and gave a business case to centralise their staff, currently spread in about 20 buildings off site, and to provide better, more efficient and thus effective services. In order to do this they needed to compulsory purchase enough land out near the local international airport....the application for the CP order was refused because some local residents complained that the sound of sirens might wake them at night and disturb wild life. Green Campaigners also objected as some of the land required was home to foxes and badgers.

As a result, the Trust is forced to spend a very large sum of money on maintenance, I do know this figure as it is my job, but I will not disclose it here, all I will say is that the figure runs into 8 figures as a result of the existing buildings being a mix that date from the 1930's, 1950's, 1980's etc etc. These building have been allowed, before the creation of the Trust, to rot because there was never the money for maintenance. As a result of people give a more of a toss about some foxes and some badgers, and possibly a good nights sleep, people now suffer a second rate service despite the best efforts of the medical staff.

So please Pauli, take your bilious crap and shove you lies, half truths and paranoid fantasies and shove them up your back passage.

If you actually live in the states, which personally I am not convinced of, then please stay there.

Originally Posted by Pauli the bull****ter

Second i said thet Americans(your use of the racist epiteth "Yank" is noted as evidence of your hate) worked longer hours than those in the UK(specifically the UK but also the rest of the EUSSR) and your graph shows this to be a fact.In the US the motivation of the workers is higher than most other nations, productivity is higher and hoyrs put in to get the job done is also higher.You forget that i have seen the difference between the UK and the USA on a personal note, you read it in a book or on a blog, is the virtual world now more realistic than the actual world?

Yet more of your bilious crap Pauli, totally inaccurate. The average working week in Europe is 37.5hrs, but the majority actually work an average of 34. In the UK the average working week is 40 hours, but the average worker completes almost 49 hours.

Here is a quote from the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics

Working (by Employed Persons) in 2008

--Employed persons worked an average of 7.6 hours on the days that they
worked. They worked longer on weekdays than on weekend days--7.9 ver-
sus 5.6 hours. (See table 4.)

--On the days that they worked, employed men worked about 0.9 hour (52
minutes) more than employed women. This difference partly reflects
women's greater likelihood of working part time. However, even among
full-time workers (those usually working 35 hours or more per week),
men worked longer than women--8.3 versus 7.7 hours. (See table 4.)

Now each of the US states records their data separately, so I calculated the average hours worked by US workers across the entire contiguous 48 States...the average, including overtime, is 42.7 hours per week.

So please now supply the information where you reckon the British are lazy and work less hours...as your post indicates.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Excellent waiting lists and rationing!!!

I am not sure why I am bothering to answer your glib response.

In an emergency the NHS response is immediate and effective, and not conditional on cost. It is only for non urgent procedures that waiting lists exist.

Rationing, or more accurately prioritisation, of course applies. National health services need to be provided within a budget, whereas private health services are provided for a price.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

False, I should know, I work for the NHS these days. The ONLY dictate is that all medical equipment used in the treatment of patients is standardised and sourced via NHS Logistics, this includes bed linen, medical dressings, wipes etc etc etc. Bars of soap are not supplied by NHS logistics, they are bought by the purchasing department of the respective NHS Trust.

I would very strongly urge you not to argue that point Pauli as I clearly know what you do not and on this I will not tolerate bull and crap from you. The NHS is not in a good state, but this is not only down to the NHS, it is down to how the Government force it to manage itself and how the public respond. My Trust wanted to build a complete new hospital at a cost of £750 million. They did all the legwork and gave a business case to centralise their staff, currently spread in about 20 buildings off site, and to provide better, more efficient and thus effective services. In order to do this they needed to compulsory purchase enough land out near the local international airport....the application for the CP order was refused because some local residents complained that the sound of sirens might wake them at night and disturb wild life. Green Campaigners also objected as some of the land required was home to foxes and badgers.

As a result, the Trust is forced to spend a very large sum of money on maintenance, I do know this figure as it is my job, but I will not disclose it here, all I will say is that the figure runs into 8 figures as a result of the existing buildings being a mix that date from the 1930's, 1950's, 1980's etc etc. These building have been allowed, before the creation of the Trust, to rot because there was never the money for maintenance. As a result of people give a more of a toss about some foxes and some badgers, and possibly a good nights sleep, people now suffer a second rate service despite the best efforts of the medical staff.

So please Pauli, take your bilious crap and shove you lies, half truths and paranoid fantasies and shove them up your back passage.

If you actually live in the states, which personally I am not convinced of, then please stay there.



Yet more of your bilious crap Pauli, totally inaccurate. The average working week in Europe is 37.5hrs, but the majority actually work an average of 34. In the UK the average working week is 40 hours, but the average worker completes almost 49 hours.

Here is a quote from the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics



Now each of the US states records their data separately, so I calculated the average hours worked by US workers across the entire contiguous 48 States...the average, including overtime, is 42.7 hours per week.

So please now supply the information where you reckon the British are lazy and work less hours...as your post indicates.

European work time regulations forbid workers from working over 48 hours a week, I remember the upset this caused in the Castle hill unit at St lukes hospital in Huddersfield(now closed down) when a couple of the male nurses who were divorced lost their overtime, they needed to work 65 hours in order to survive, the 48 wouldnt cut it.
How would the government gain this Info in the US,they cant even keep track of who lives here.I know that in the UK i worked around 35 to 40 hours(currently my son works 22 my son in law 18, its all they can find, part time work) here i work at least 60, often 80 or more.My wife also works 60+ hours.
Now perhaps the government bases its statistics on what they can see, hourly paid workers for example, they couldnt see how long a day a saleried worker works.
Another point missing here is that the stats do not cover the time SPENT AT WORK they cover HOURS WORKED ignoring hours spent socialising with collegues or in the bathroom etc, which may have been more the point being made in that little detail of yours.
Kiwis chart told a different story altogether, which one is correct?
Also I never said the british are lazy just that they work less hours there are reasons for that also as i have pointed out before, non that i have mentioned were about Lazyness but you kep with your deluded Ideas.

The OP here also states how Nurses were forced to purchase individual bars of soap because the NHS restricted purchasing from an approoved supplier, I was simply taking the OP on this thread at face Value.

However the NHS is still wastefull and rationed, backward compared to the American system.

I will return to and visit my homeland whenever i wish, you wanna stop me?

I have already peoven to within a shadow of a doubt that I reside in the USA and that I am also a British citizen, I can do so again if you wish, I will post any details you demand, I have done it before, Name Address Social security number, bank details, Hational Insurance number(UK).Wifes details, the lot, Just demand, go on, i have done the same before, my details are out there, I have no fear!!

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

I am not sure why I am bothering to answer your glib response.

In an emergency the NHS response is immediate and effective, and not conditional on cost. It is only for non urgent procedures that waiting lists exist.

Rationing, or more accurately prioritisation, of course applies. National health services need to be provided within a budget, whereas private health services are provided for a price.

In the USA emergency services are provided immediatly and effectivly with a far shorter wait to be seen and are also not conditional on cost, what is your point?
Other services are available without waiting lists.All other services.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

In the USA emergency services are provided immediatly and effectivly with a far shorter wait to be seen and are also not conditional on cost, what is your point?
Other services are available without waiting lists.All other services.

Whatever!!

You will forgive me, or not, but having witnessed the general nature of your posts on this forum over the months, and having suffered from your denigrating comments and your ill thought out views on this very subject, you are the last person I wish to be drawn into debate with. I will not therefore respond further to you on this topic.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

I do not presume to know more about your country's health care problems than you. However isn't the present watered down and ambiguous proposed legislation the direct result of sustained and intransigent opposition from not only the Republicans but also from a large number of Democrats? I am fully prepared to be corrected if I am wrong.

Agreed, there is 'sustained and intransigent opposition'. 'We' live in a representative republic, not a dictatorship. Our representatives are elected locally, as opposed to 'parachuted in', to represent the will of the people, to speak for us, not of the party, and certainly not the will of the President. Former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neil, famously said; "All politics are local". This is true for the U.S. Bottom line is that it matters not, from a Constitutional standpoint, whether 'we' need universal healthcare, whether opposition is 'immoral', or anything else you or I may believe about the current 'debates'. From a constitutional/governmental standpoint the only thing that should matters is the will of the people, and polls show that the people are against the proposals as they now stand. Social right and wrong should count, but individually to add up to the will of the people being for, unfortunately it doesn't. In the U.S., we have a distrust of government telling us what we need/want. Our tradition is one of the people telling the government. It matters not whether I'm for or against, in the final analysis, what should matter is what the people want, 'the people' being defined as what the majority want, as expressed to their representatives.

The NHS in the UK is in my opinion an excellent organisation at the point of providing care for acute and serious chronic conditions. It is however poorly managed financially and administratively and therefore costs far more than it should. This is always the danger with public organisations were there is a systemic lack of individual accountability and the belief that that taxpayer funds are limitless. However this doesn't invalidate the social benefits of a national health service.

Show me one governmental bureaucratic organization that isn't 'poorly managed financially and administratively', it's the nature of government.

I agree with the social benefits, but my over riding concern is, again, for the process, the will of the people, not social good or the will of a few hundred elected souls in Washington.

Originally Posted by Don

Agreed, there is 'sustained and intransigent opposition'. 'We' live in a representative republic, not a dictatorship. Our representatives are elected locally, as opposed to 'parachuted in', to represent the will of the people, to speak for us, not of the party, and certainly not the will of the President. Former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neil, famously said; "All politics are local". This is true for the U.S. Bottom line is that it matters not, from a Constitutional standpoint, whether 'we' need universal healthcare, whether opposition is 'immoral', or anything else you or I may believe about the current 'debates'. From a constitutional/governmental standpoint the only thing that should matters is the will of the people, and polls show that the people are against the proposals as they now stand. Social right and wrong should count, but individually to add up to the will of the people being for, unfortunately it doesn't. In the U.S., we have a distrust of government telling us what we need/want. Our tradition is one of the people telling the government. It matters not whether I'm for or against, in the final analysis, what should matter is what the people want, 'the people' being defined as what the majority want, as expressed to their representatives.



Show me one governmental bureaucratic organization that isn't 'poorly managed financially and administratively', it's the nature of government.

I agree with the social benefits, but my over riding concern is, again, for the process, the will of the people, not social good or the will of a few hundred elected souls in Washington.

A rational response. Ultimately democracy is the will of the majority of the people. However an effective democracy should also protect the human and civil rights of minority groups. One should not forget that the National Socialist German Workers Party formed a democratically elected government.

My own view is that a civilised society has an obligation to those of its members who are unable to support themselves to provide a 'social safety net'. Even though in European terms I am right of centre, I would never support a view which wished to remove the three lynch-pins of such a society which are health, education and welfare. I rush to exclude from this, those who have adopted a 'benefits lifestyle' and are happy to sponge off the taxpayer.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

A rational response. Ultimately democracy is the will of the majority of the people. However an effective democracy should also protect the human and civil rights of minority groups. One should not forget that the National Socialist German Workers Party formed a democratically elected government.

Democratically elected yes, but that is about as far as 'the will of the people' went. They gave up power to the central 'government', forgetting that in a democracy, the people are the government. That said, there is a line over which it should not be allowed to cross. Germany of the 30's and 40's crossed that line, and it is obvious, to me at least, outside intervention was called for, sooner rather than later, just as I would argue in Saddam's case. Too bad Neville Chamberlain valued an easy peace over right, but then it wasn't his real estate he was giving away nor his citizens being led to slaughter.

My own view is that a civilised society has an obligation to those of its members who are unable to support themselves to provide a 'social safety net'. Even though in European terms I am right of centre, I would never support a view which wished to remove the three lynch-pins of such a society which are health, education and welfare. I rush to exclude from this, those who have adopted a 'benefits lifestyle' and are happy to sponge off the taxpayer.

We are of one mind as to the obligations of a civilized society, however that society is made up of the people, of which I am but one. If the people say no, then perhaps we should brand them 'non civilized', but they should have their way, with the above type of exception. It does not apply in this case. Contrary to popular belief, U.S. citizens are not dying by the hundreds in the streets because they cannot afford health care. As much as I loathe pauli's hyperbole and bluster, we do have emergency rooms open to all and for the most part they are state of the art. Also public hospitals (usually 'quangos' as you would put it if I understand the term correctly) cannot refuse patients based on ability to pay for necessary treatment, elective treatment is a different case however.

Originally Posted by Don

Democratically elected yes, but that is about as far as 'the will of the people' went. They gave up power to the central 'government', forgetting that in a democracy, the people are the government. That said, there is a line over which it should not be allowed to cross. Germany of the 30's and 40's crossed that line, and it is obvious, to me at least, outside intervention was called for, sooner rather than later, just as I would argue in Saddam's case. Too bad Neville Chamberlain valued an easy peace over right, but then it wasn't his real estate he was giving away nor his citizens being led to slaughter.



We are of one mind as to the obligations of a civilized society, however that society is made up of the people, of which I am but one. If the people say no, then perhaps we should brand them 'non civilized', but they should have their way, with the above type of exception. It does not apply in this case. Contrary to popular belief, U.S. citizens are not dying by the hundreds in the streets because they cannot afford health care. As much as I loathe pauli's hyperbole and bluster, we do have emergency rooms open to all and for the most part they are state of the art. Also public hospitals (usually 'quangos' as you would put it if I understand the term correctly) cannot refuse patients based on ability to pay for necessary treatment, elective treatment is a different case however.

I just wanted to jump in and point out, Don, that following the will of the majority of the people does not necessarily lead to just government. Say 60% of Americans wanted to execute all black people? Would that make it a legitimate law to make? OK different because it contravenes the constitution, but I think it demonstrates the extent to which governments must be prepared to protect human interests of minorities against majorities as much as they represent the majority. It's a difficult balancing act, but again it comes down to whether you think nationalised medicine is a fundamentally good thing or not rather than what the will of the majority is. If it is unjust not to have it (my opinion is that it is) then the majority will is irrelevant, unless of course it is the will of the people who would benefit.

Originally Posted by DougieG

I just wanted to jump in and point out, Don, that following the will of the majority of the people does not necessarily lead to just government. Say 60% of Americans wanted to execute all black people? Would that make it a legitimate law to make? OK different because it contravenes the constitution, but I think it demonstrates the extent to which governments must be prepared to protect human interests of minorities against majorities as much as they represent the majority. It's a difficult balancing act, but again it comes down to whether you think nationalised medicine is a fundamentally good thing or not rather than what the will of the majority is. If it is unjust not to have it (my opinion is that it is) then the majority will is irrelevant, unless of course it is the will of the people who would benefit.

Read what I said Dougie, there is a line that calls for intervention, outside if necessary. Universal health care ain't it.. I think we need some form of it, but more limited. Perhaps for those who can't get health insurance. I do not think anyone should be forced to have insurance, as long as they understand the consequences, "no tickee, no laundry". Nor do I think an insurance company should be forced to provide for pre-existing conditions. Insurance is a business and essentially a gamble, and it is unfair to tell them they have to accept and pay out for pre existing conditions. It's akin to telling a casino they must payout winnings without a bet being placed.

We are a nation of laws, the Constitution being "The Law" by which all others are judged. We do not vest power in the president to decide what is best for the rest of the citizens and then cram it down our throats. It is not his role. His role is Commander in Chief, enforcement of laws, and to 'propose' legislation to Congress. It is Congress's role to make law, taking into consideration the will of the people and the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme. The people are the government, their will is supposed to be paramount as long as it does not contravene the Constitution.