Carryfast:
Franglais:
Carryfast:
To be fair the US reasoning is being misrepresented as part of the Brit establishment agenda.On that note the reality is that the American way rightly understands the conflict of interest which arises when we have the government acting as a type of dodgy controlled opposition Union baron controlling the right to negotiate between employer and employee regarding the health care component of wage demands.While we know that the government is always on the side of the employer.Which is the flaw in the NHS system and explains why the default choice for the NHS is always rationing to suit the situation in which the employer dictates that health care component of the wage to the government.With the employee nor even the employees’ union having no right to bargain in their own right directly with the employer in that regard.On that note yes it’s the worst type of collective agreement in which ironically the government actually represents the interests of the employer not the employee and people are definitely dying because of the resulting rationing which by definition that system imposes on itself.IE the NHS is there to deal with the symptoms of low wages by imposing rationing on its consumers.As opposed to allowing unions to force the situation in which incomes have to cover health care costs from cradle to grave and all dependents without any rationing of health care provision.The fact that US wage levels are being decimated by globalisation is a different issue and going for an NHS type based system ain’t going to fix that just as it doesn’t fix it here.
That’s why the US working class are happy to vote for Trump in the mistaken belief that he will fix the issue of globalisation wrecking US living standards.But in the correct belief that the NHS was flawed from its introduction and it’s far better to have the situation of strong unions in a protected economy with a private based health care system with the incomes to afford it.
How many US private insurance companies give cover for pre-existing and congenital conditions?
How much would they charge if any do offer such cover? Are all workers going to get pay to cover the possibility of such need? Will cover continue after someone becomes so ill as not to be able to work?That’s why the mortality in US hospitals you quoted earlier is low: the gravely ill can’t afford care, so die at home.
Look at mortality rates in hospitals, but ALSO look at life expectancy and infant mortality figures.Did you actually read the articles stating that Brit hospitals are deciding who lives and who dies based just on available resources which translates as hard cash just as in the US example.Which obviously also includes those considered to be the wrong age,with the wrong expensive to treat illnesses,including the situation of more patients than available intensive care beds.In which case what’s the difference between a Brit being denied the required treatment and then sent home or to hospice as a ‘palliative’ case v an American who can’t afford the required treatment.They both die outside of the hospital environment so don’t get counted in either case.
As for US health cover for pre existing issues and insufficient incomes etc if it was as bad as being suggested Americans would obviously all be fleeing the place in their droves rather than them having to take extreme measures to keep illegal mass immigration out.As for the NHS it’s obviously better to fix the cause by providing well paid jobs than the symptoms in the form of unsustainable supposedly ‘free’ health care provision that can only always be anything but.With it unfortunately being the patient who is the one who suddenly finds out the hard way that the state run option has run out of cash having allowed the employers to dictate what they are prepared to pay for their employees’ health care.As opposed to the employees dictating what they are prepared to work for in terms of the real cost of decent health care cover.
There is a rationing of health care in the UK. Agreed. And it is often cost related. It is decided by NICE what treatments are effective, and are cost effective. Given that medical treatments are sophisticated and expensive there are some treatments too expensive to be used. No one is disputing that. Many factors are taken into account about patients, but, a person’s bank balance or insurance cover is NOT relevant.
Given more cash in the NHS there would be more treatments available. Of course that’s so. Seems to me we’re already getting a pretty cheap, good value for money service. Not perfect, but then, nothing is.
No need to introduce profit taking private insurance schemes, just up our payments into the kitty for ALL of us, not just those in better paid jobs.
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk