England socialised Medicine. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Endymon32 · 01-13-2004, 05:38 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/...122122,00.html

Quote:

The government's plans to introduce screening for bowel cancer across the UK could founder on the inadequate and over-stretched existing services for diagnosing gut disorders, according to a major study published today.
Bowel cancer is the third most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death in the UK. There are 30,000 diagnoses and 15,000 deaths each year. The government has pledged to set up a screening service and has run two pilot studies, but as yet there is no date for screening to begin.

The programme, which could cut death from the disease by 15%, will depend on the availability of following up blood test screening with colonoscopies, the "gold standard" investigation in which a tiny camera is inserted through the rectum and along the large intestine.

But an analysis of 9,223 colonoscopies in 68 NHS hospitals over four months reveals that many were inadequate and most of the staff carrying them out had not been properly trained.

"Colonoscopy is a difficult skill to master," says the paper in the medical journal Gut by Cecilia Bowles and colleagues from the Royal Free hospital in London. "Over-sedation, perforation, bleeding and procedure-related death remain much feared complications."

In 20% of the colonoscopies studied, the procedure had to be abandoned, say the authors. Only 56.9% of all colonoscopies could be confirmed to be complete.

"We are urging government to thrash out what resources will be needed to implement the national bowel cancer screening programme so it is not placed in jeopardy," said Mike Hellier of the British Society of Gastroenterology.

More proof that Government controled medicine just doesnt work.

Strange Famous · 01-14-2004, 12:11 PM

This is not "proof" - what you COULD prove, if you tried harder, was that the NHS is the provides the worst standard of health care in Western Europe - and that, for example, the hospitals are often so dirty that a 68 year old guy I knew who had cancer which was possibly operable was told he may as well stay home and die because if he had an operation in hospital he would almost certainly catch an infection that would kill him.

You could prove maybe that the British National Health Service is mismanaged, funds are very badly allocated, staff are demoralised, and that it simply isnt working... what you cannot even claim to prove is simply to say one example of something not working proves that that system can never work.

Why dont you compare, for example, health care in Sweden and rural Louisana?

filtherton · 01-14-2004, 12:46 PM

Your proof isn't proof of anything, except for the fact that england has over-stretched existing services for diagnosing gut disorders. How is that an indictment of government controlled medicine? Does that mean that the lack of affordable healthcare in the u.s. is also "proof" of the failure of free market controlled health care?

Ustwo · 01-14-2004, 12:57 PM

While government healthcare sucks even worse then government schools, this isn't the proof.

Strange Famous · 01-14-2004, 02:39 PM

Well Utswo, we can't all afford to pay for a private school I guess.

seretogis · 01-14-2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Well Utswo, we can't all afford to pay for a private school I guess.

Interestingly enough, those who are pro public schools would never dare to send their children there. They know that public schools are crap, and send their children to private academies, and then vote down voucher programs for those of us poor saps who can't afford $10k a semester for our 15 year olds.

Strange Famous · 01-14-2004, 03:48 PM

Well, I went to a public school and I managed to go to university and do ok.

I just dont see how, economically, low to average wage earners can afford to pay for private schooling. If the state gives vouchers to people to go to private schools, then there really is no difference - the state is still funding the education, and just saying they are too incompetent to manage education properly.

I cant speak for America, I would say school's in the UK arent great, but from the few friends I knew who went to private school, there are a lot of problems in them too.

Ustwo · 01-14-2004, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
I just dont see how, economically, low to average wage earners can afford to pay for private schooling.

Odd, I see that every day when I work. For what the government pays for the average student (out of our tax money) the catholic schools do far better on for less.

Zeld2.0 · 01-14-2004, 05:33 PM

Eh both public and private schools have their own shit, and having experienced both, all i can say is, they all suck.

nanofever · 01-14-2004, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Interestingly enough, those who are pro public schools would never dare to send their children there. They know that public schools are crap, and send their children to private academies, and then vote down voucher programs for those of us poor saps who can't afford $10k a semester for our 15 year olds.

I for one believe that this nation's poor children recieve far too much schooling and they should be sent back to the coal mines and textile mills. A child in the textile mills can make a six-pence a day for his family instead of wasting his time with learning only meant for wealth children. Since good Darwin proved that wealth people are more biologically fit to survive, I believe we should cut off all service which might benefit the biologically weaker lower classes.

/1900

Ustwo · 01-14-2004, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
I for one believe that this nation's poor children recieve far too much schooling and they should be sent back to the coal mines and textile mills. A child in the textile mills can make a six-pence a day for his family instead of wasting his time with learning only meant for wealth children. Since good Darwin proved that wealth people are more biologically fit to survive, I believe we should cut off all service which might benefit the biologically weaker lower classes.

/1900

nanofever · 01-14-2004, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo

sat·ire ( P ) Pronunciation Key (str)
n.

1: A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

2: The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.

3: Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

Might I direct your eyes to numbers one and three Ustwo.

Ustwo · 01-14-2004, 07:47 PM

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=No+Shit

No Shit

1 .Used to express contemptuous acknowledgment of the obvious.

2. To affirm as in "no really?" but in a sarcastic, slightly insulting way.

3. Expression said to people who state the obvious.

nanofever · 01-14-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=No+Shit

No Shit

1 .Used to express contemptuous acknowledgment of the obvious.

2. To affirm as in "no really?" but in a sarcastic, slightly insulting way.

3. Expression said to people who state the obvious.

If a person is too dense to realize, or perhaps acknowledge, the differences between trolling and satire, then maybe just maybe that person should take the attitude down a couple of notches before trying to make a snappy comeback.

irateplatypus · 01-14-2004, 08:17 PM

Earth to Minkus, I knew that already.

Ustwo · 01-14-2004, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
If a person is too dense to realize, or perhaps acknowledge, the differences between trolling and satire, then maybe just maybe that person should take the attitude down a couple of notches before trying to make a snappy comeback.

Um nanofeaver my friend, it was rather obvious you were being sarcastic and I still call it a troll. You can troll while being sarcastic.

Trolling and sarcasam work well together. Lets try this for an example.

Nanofever thanks so much for teaching me the definition of sarcasm. Without your helpfull definition I might spend the rest of my life thinking people always mean exactly what they say and write. This has been such a relief to me as it clears up many instances in my life where the outcome didn't make sense based on the conversation. I owe you Sir a debt of thanks I can never repay. I may have to reread Johnathan Swift though, I may have made a terrible mistake after reading " A Modest Proposal ".

Now the above post served no purpose but to provoke, gave no usefull info, didn't state a point of view, BUT it was also sarcastic. It by it self is a troll. Much like your post.

*sees Lebell comming with a stick*

seretogis · 01-15-2004, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
I for one believe that this nation's poor children recieve far too much schooling and they should be sent back to the coal mines and textile mills. A child in the textile mills can make a six-pence a day for his family instead of wasting his time with learning only meant for wealth children. Since good Darwin proved that wealth people are more biologically fit to survive, I believe we should cut off all service which might benefit the biologically weaker lower classes.

/1900

If you have nothing useful to contribute, don't bother posting or trolling.

Privatizing public schools by way of a voucher system would not deny lower/middle class parents of an education for their children, it would provide them with more options and better schools.

Superbelt · 01-15-2004, 09:18 AM

[edit]
taking it to a new thread.

Ustwo · 01-15-2004, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
No it wouldn't.

Voucher systems would only give money from Title 10. That amount of money amounts to 1,100 dollars per student. The rest of the education money comes from the state. Title 10 is meant to level the playing field between different school districts around the country.

That 1,100 will be enticing and effective for upper middle class people who can afford the average 7,500 a year it costs to send a kid to private school. It will also be money given to families who already send their kids to public schools. But for everyone else, the middle class and poor kids, that won't amount to more than a drop in the bucket. It will take a big chunk of that 'evening out money' out of the poor schools who really need it though. And that only makes our schools worse. "No Child Left Behind" is just the first step in fully erasing the american public school system.

Yes I know, OT, if anyone wants to take it further lets make a new topic.

#1 No reason it can't be a state voucher system as well.
#2 Whats this middle class can't afford bullshit? I am currently sitting in my office in a VERY middle class area, with the tiny post WWII housing, with blue collar jobs and 1000's of them go to private schools. You tell these people that 1100 wouldn't matter, but I'd be sure to do it in some place public.

They make sacrifices to afford it in order to give their children the best education possible, and the best future possible. I’m sometimes wonder what view of America you have, and why it seems so far out of wack with reality.

Candide · 01-15-2004, 10:04 AM

Is there a chance this thread could get pack to private vs. public health care? Having lived/worked in Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, I have some thoughts, but I'd like to read more of what everyone else has to say.

Lebell · 01-15-2004, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
I for one believe that this nation's poor children recieve far too much schooling and they should be sent back to the coal mines and textile mills...

I don't know what a textile worker starts at, but an average coal miner STARTS at around 18$ an hour and are highly sought after by new grads. (And very hard to get, too.)

Mehoni · 02-06-2004, 10:48 PM

The mandatory "In Sweden"-reply:

In Sweden we have next to none public schools (only 1-2% enrolled in private/independent schools) and practically no private healthcare facilities.

Go go goverment!

http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=26
http://www.settlement.org/cp/english/sweden/health.html
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/pub...comment45.html

Dostoevsky · 02-09-2004, 11:26 AM

Governments never allocate resources as efficiently as private firms do in free markets. That's a fact. Most of the problems America has with its healthcare system are caused by government legislation and policy. If government would step back and let markets work the way they would naturally, based on competition and self-interest, health care would reach an efficient equilibrium between supply and demand.

I double majored in Finance and Economics during my undergrad studies and sometimes I get frustrated reading points of views from people who don't understand the mechanics of economics. That is what we're discussing here, right? Alot of times I think folks have their hearts in the right place because they want to help others, but sadly, economics deals with scarcity, and there is not always enough to go around.

Healthcare, like all other resources is scarce, and free markets, not governments are better suited to divide scarce resources. I could certainly write more about this subject but I'm not sure it would do any good. I really wonder whether people are truly open to logic on subjects like this or whether their minds are already made up and they just want to talk about how admirable socialism is and how uncool capitalism is.

Onto Vouchers:

Vouchers would create a private market for schools and create competition that would lead to more efficient, higher quality and more innovative education. The reason America will most likely never go to a voucher system is the teacher's union.

Believe it or not, that union is probably the most powerful in America. The union likes the public education system because it creates job security and artificially inflated wages for teachers.

In a private system, teachers would be held accountable for the performance of their pupils and expected to do their job well because the success of their company would depend it. We don't have that now.

If a teacher doesn't perform well in a public school, parents normally do not have the option of enrolling their student somewhere else so school administrators don't care. If there were alternative available and it was easier to transfer, then school administrators would be a little more worried about losing students (money) and they would fire bad teachers and find better ones. Teaching would no longer be a profession that tolerated lazy, paycheck collecting slackers.

You can understand why the teacher's union isn't interested in a situation like that, can't you?? That is just another example of how government is unable to distribute resources (education) efficiently. Our tax money would be used more efficiently in a free market that would provide cheaper, superior education.

I'm done now...

-Dostoevsky

smooth · 02-10-2004, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dostoevsky
Governments never allocate resources as efficiently as private firms do in free markets. That's a fact. Most of the problems America has with its healthcare system are caused by government legislation and policy. If government would step back and let markets work the way they would naturally, based on competition and self-interest, health care would reach an efficient equilibrium between supply and demand.

I double majored in Finance and Economics during my undergrad studies and sometimes I get frustrated reading points of views from people who don't understand the mechanics of economics. That is what we're discussing here, right? Alot of times I think folks have their hearts in the right place because they want to help others, but sadly, economics deals with scarcity, and there is not always enough to go around.

Healthcare, like all other resources is scarce, and free markets, not governments are better suited to divide scarce resources. I could certainly write more about this subject but I'm not sure it would do any good. I really wonder whether people are truly open to logic on subjects like this or whether their minds are already made up and they just want to talk about how admirable socialism is and how uncool capitalism is.

Onto Vouchers:

Vouchers would create a private market for schools and create competition that would lead to more efficient, higher quality and more innovative education. The reason America will most likely never go to a voucher system is the teacher's union.

Believe it or not, that union is probably the most powerful in America. The union likes the public education system because it creates job security and artificially inflated wages for teachers.

In a private system, teachers would be held accountable for the performance of their pupils and expected to do their job well because the success of their company would depend it. We don't have that now.

If a teacher doesn't perform well in a public school, parents normally do not have the option of enrolling their student somewhere else so school administrators don't care. If there were alternative available and it was easier to transfer, then school administrators would be a little more worried about losing students (money) and they would fire bad teachers and find better ones. Teaching would no longer be a profession that tolerated lazy, paycheck collecting slackers.

You can understand why the teacher's union isn't interested in a situation like that, can't you?? That is just another example of how government is unable to distribute resources (education) efficiently. Our tax money would be used more efficiently in a free market that would provide cheaper, superior education.

I'm done now...

-Dostoevsky

I'm not going to debate the point that private firms are more efficient than government entities other than to state that there isn't anything inherent in either one that would preclude the other from being just as, if not more, efficient than the other.

Regardless, the problem I see with your analysis is that you are using efficiency as a trump card. That is, in some services, I prefer things like compassion and equity--things I don't see a private firm particularly interested in. In fact, according to your analysis wherein efficiency is paramount, we would expect those other components to be on the periphery--if considered at all.

Dostoevsky · 02-10-2004, 11:48 PM

"I'm not going to debate the point that private firms are more efficient than government entities other than to state that there isn't anything inherent in either one that would preclude the other from being just as, if not more, efficient than the other"
-Smooth

Actually that's not true. If you had read the example I gave about vouchers leading to increased efficiency in education you may have seen the point more clearly. I'll try again.

Private companies constantly look for better, more efficient ways to produce goods and services because they compete with other private companies for market share. So self interest is the inherent, motivating factor that drives efficiency in free markets. The efficiencies created in free market are passed along to us, consumers, in the form of lower prices and a higher standard of living.

When Government gets involved in the distribution of resources inefficiencies arise due to lack of competition. Without competition, resources need not be used as efficiently as possible because there is no consquence to doing a poor job. If a private firm sucks at doing something, it can't compete and becomes insolvent. When the government sucks at doing something, tax payers suffer the inefficiencies in the form of wasted taxes and frustration.

Many people do not grasp economic theory though. Those people tend to focus less on how free markets lead to a higher overall standard of living in our country and more on things like "compassion" and "equity." How it's unfair or discompassionate to use our scarce resources wisely is beyond me. Then again, I'm not a liberal.

01-14-2004, 12:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	This is not "proof" - what you COULD prove, if you tried harder, was that the NHS is the provides the worst standard of health care in Western Europe - and that, for example, the hospitals are often so dirty that a 68 year old guy I knew who had cancer which was possibly operable was told he may as well stay home and die because if he had an operation in hospital he would almost certainly catch an infection that would kill him. You could prove maybe that the British National Health Service is mismanaged, funds are very badly allocated, staff are demoralised, and that it simply isnt working... what you cannot even claim to prove is simply to say one example of something not working proves that that system can never work. Why dont you compare, for example, health care in Sweden and rural Louisana? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-14-2004, 12:57 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	While government healthcare sucks even worse then government schools, this isn't the proof. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-14-2004, 02:39 PM	#5 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Well Utswo, we can't all afford to pay for a private school I guess. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-14-2004, 03:48 PM	#7 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Well, I went to a public school and I managed to go to university and do ok. I just dont see how, economically, low to average wage earners can afford to pay for private schooling. If the state gives vouchers to people to go to private schools, then there really is no difference - the state is still funding the education, and just saying they are too incompetent to manage education properly. I cant speak for America, I would say school's in the UK arent great, but from the few friends I knew who went to private school, there are a lot of problems in them too. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-14-2004, 07:47 PM	#13 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=No+Shit No Shit 1 .Used to express contemptuous acknowledgment of the obvious. 2. To affirm as in "no really?" but in a sarcastic, slightly insulting way. 3. Expression said to people who state the obvious. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-14-2004, 12:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Your proof isn't proof of anything, except for the fact that england has over-stretched existing services for diagnosing gut disorders. How is that an indictment of government controlled medicine? Does that mean that the lack of affordable healthcare in the u.s. is also "proof" of the failure of free market controlled health care?

01-14-2004, 05:33 PM	#9 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Eh both public and private schools have their own shit, and having experienced both, all i can say is, they all suck.

01-14-2004, 08:17 PM	#15 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	Earth to Minkus, I knew that already. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

01-15-2004, 09:18 AM	#18 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	[edit] taking it to a new thread. Last edited by Superbelt; 01-15-2004 at 09:37 AM..

01-15-2004, 10:04 AM	#20 (permalink)
Candide Upright Location: Calgary, Alberta	Is there a chance this thread could get pack to private vs. public health care? Having lived/worked in Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, I have some thoughts, but I'd like to read more of what everyone else has to say.

02-06-2004, 10:48 PM	#22 (permalink)
Mehoni Insane Location: Within the Woods	The mandatory "In Sweden"-reply: In Sweden we have next to none public schools (only 1-2% enrolled in private/independent schools) and practically no private healthcare facilities. Go go goverment! http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=26 http://www.settlement.org/cp/english/sweden/health.html http://www.policyalternatives.ca/pub...comment45.html __________________ There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.

02-09-2004, 11:26 AM	#23 (permalink)
Dostoevsky Psycho Location: Macon, GA	Governments never allocate resources as efficiently as private firms do in free markets. That's a fact. Most of the problems America has with its healthcare system are caused by government legislation and policy. If government would step back and let markets work the way they would naturally, based on competition and self-interest, health care would reach an efficient equilibrium between supply and demand. I double majored in Finance and Economics during my undergrad studies and sometimes I get frustrated reading points of views from people who don't understand the mechanics of economics. That is what we're discussing here, right? Alot of times I think folks have their hearts in the right place because they want to help others, but sadly, economics deals with scarcity, and there is not always enough to go around. Healthcare, like all other resources is scarce, and free markets, not governments are better suited to divide scarce resources. I could certainly write more about this subject but I'm not sure it would do any good. I really wonder whether people are truly open to logic on subjects like this or whether their minds are already made up and they just want to talk about how admirable socialism is and how uncool capitalism is. Onto Vouchers: Vouchers would create a private market for schools and create competition that would lead to more efficient, higher quality and more innovative education. The reason America will most likely never go to a voucher system is the teacher's union. Believe it or not, that union is probably the most powerful in America. The union likes the public education system because it creates job security and artificially inflated wages for teachers. In a private system, teachers would be held accountable for the performance of their pupils and expected to do their job well because the success of their company would depend it. We don't have that now. If a teacher doesn't perform well in a public school, parents normally do not have the option of enrolling their student somewhere else so school administrators don't care. If there were alternative available and it was easier to transfer, then school administrators would be a little more worried about losing students (money) and they would fire bad teachers and find better ones. Teaching would no longer be a profession that tolerated lazy, paycheck collecting slackers. You can understand why the teacher's union isn't interested in a situation like that, can't you?? That is just another example of how government is unable to distribute resources (education) efficiently. Our tax money would be used more efficiently in a free market that would provide cheaper, superior education. I'm done now... -Dostoevsky __________________ Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned. It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

02-10-2004, 11:48 PM	#25 (permalink)
Dostoevsky Psycho Location: Macon, GA	"I'm not going to debate the point that private firms are more efficient than government entities other than to state that there isn't anything inherent in either one that would preclude the other from being just as, if not more, efficient than the other" -Smooth Actually that's not true. If you had read the example I gave about vouchers leading to increased efficiency in education you may have seen the point more clearly. I'll try again. Private companies constantly look for better, more efficient ways to produce goods and services because they compete with other private companies for market share. So self interest is the inherent, motivating factor that drives efficiency in free markets. The efficiencies created in free market are passed along to us, consumers, in the form of lower prices and a higher standard of living. When Government gets involved in the distribution of resources inefficiencies arise due to lack of competition. Without competition, resources need not be used as efficiently as possible because there is no consquence to doing a poor job. If a private firm sucks at doing something, it can't compete and becomes insolvent. When the government sucks at doing something, tax payers suffer the inefficiencies in the form of wasted taxes and frustration. Many people do not grasp economic theory though. Those people tend to focus less on how free markets lead to a higher overall standard of living in our country and more on things like "compassion" and "equity." How it's unfair or discompassionate to use our scarce resources wisely is beyond me. Then again, I'm not a liberal. __________________ Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned. It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged