| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jose Jones |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 06:34:42
is it a right? should it be free?
i'm of the opinion that it can't be free (or is that just the truth?) because SOMEONE has to pay. doctors, nurses, etc have to get paid for their services. so who should pay and how? taxes?
can the government seriously be expected to make things run more efficiently? should bureaucrats be trusted to make decisions for us and the doctors?
the way i see it, the best path to making american healthcare more affordable is getting patients back to being the "customer" , where doctors answer to US and not the insurance companies.
what do you folks think?
-----------------------
they were the heroes of old, men of renown. |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Daisy Girl |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 14:39:35
Well, I am very much in support of universal coverage but maintaining employer based health care. I believe that people with pre existing conditions should be covered but at the same time there needs to be an individual mandate.
I have been doing some research and I don't think any of the proposed legislation really gets at the root causes of health care costs which are obesity, chronic conditions and poor management of end of life care. No one wants to go there because I think it's too politically charged.
What I have seen is proposals that throw lot of dollars out or shift things around, but don't really get at sustainable solutions that solve for the problems listed above.
It scares me that politicians that know very little about the health system are going to be putting on all these requirements that they really don't know what effect it will have. It makes me wonder if we might end up getting a more expensive system than what we already have.
What also scares me is that the US has developed a lot of the health care innovations for the world and if the government takes over, we're more likely to loose those innovations because there won't be the resources or the incentives to fund such innovations we most desperately need.
What is being proposed is also going to lead to government guidelines similar to NICE in the UK that in the end are really the best care for you, but I just don't see the average American taking it well when they are told the can't have that CAT scan or redundant or unnecessary lab tests that they erroneously equate with a higher quality of care.
It's also going to further strain the already limited supply of providers.
I think the idea of reform is good, but I don't think that what I have seen will really solve anything and we will be having the same debate 5 years from now. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 08:04:54
I remember sitting in a basement listening to Fields of Marigold until I passed out.
|
| trobrianders |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 08:00:29
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
I agree, tro.
I remember sitting in a basement listening to Fields of Marigold until I passed out.
Consider our thread a Hitchens vaccine trial.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| kathryn |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 07:29:48
Well put, crackity.
If I may be so crass (not to mention lacking any and all medical training), some people I know insist that it was the (I think mercury? in the) MMR shot that "made" their child autistic. But a couple of years before the boy was diagnosed a couple of us noticed that he was a bit "off" -- we weren't surprised at the heartbreaking diagnosis, though his parents still insist that nothing had been amiss until the shots. Very sad and touchy subject...
I remember sitting in a basement listening to Fields of Marigold until I passed out.
|
| Crackitybones |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 07:07:21
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
quote:
Originally posted by Jose Jones
it would include mandatory vaccinations for children. that alienates an otherwise fairly liberal population.
That makes sense, right? If you don't vaccinate, you risk making others sick, which, in turn, costs money.
I remember sitting in a basement listening to Fields of Marigold until I passed out.
This is the eternal problem with vaccination - the individual, libertarian argument is that one should have the choice whether to vaccinate or not. The utilitarian social argument is that vaccination will only be truly effective, i.e will control or ideally eradicate a disease, if you vaccinate the majority of the population. Witness the MMR scare in the UK, where (subsequently disproven) research linking the vaccine with the development of autism and Crohn's disease led to a significant fall in vaccination uptake and outbreaks of measles, which can kill.
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 05:38:32
I agree, tro.
I remember sitting in a basement listening to Fields of Marigold until I passed out.
|
| trobrianders |
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 23:52:28
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
I don't have fears. I have a desire to avoid measles, mumps, etc.
And there can't be too much of a choice, given how diseases spread.
I remember sitting in a basement listening to Fields of Marigold until I passed out.
Couldn't help but pick up on a Hitchens dialectic:
I don't have fears. I have a desire to avoid being dictated to by religious types
And there can't be too much of a choice, given how religion operates.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| Ziggy |
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 11:42:52
It's a peculiar thing how some people are obsessed with the idea that Government = wrong, and that the private sector is the best choice for the 'customer'.
The NHS is real asset to the UK. The real danger is the way key services are being privatised (cleaning, for example... directly related to the outbreaks of MRSA, since none of the staff are accountable to the NHS itself).
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 09:28:46
I don't have fears. I have a desire to avoid measles, mumps, etc.
And there can't be too much of a choice, given how diseases spread.
I remember sitting in a basement listening to Fields of Marigold until I passed out.
|
| danjersey |
Posted - 08/05/2009 : 18:03:44
How many mandatory vaccinations from the Government will it take to quell your fears?
Where does it end?
There must be a choice. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 08/05/2009 : 16:07:27
quote:
Originally posted by Jose Jones
it would include mandatory vaccinations for children. that alienates an otherwise fairly liberal population.
That makes sense, right? If you don't vaccinate, you risk making others sick, which, in turn, costs money.
I remember sitting in a basement listening to Fields of Marigold until I passed out.
|
| Jose Jones |
Posted - 08/05/2009 : 15:50:12
the debate over here is getting pretty interesting. my wife frequents a natural parenting forum and she tells me they are up in arms about "obamacare" because it would include mandatory vaccinations for children. that alienates an otherwise fairly liberal population.
--------------
they were the heroes of old, men of renown. |
| Crackitybones |
Posted - 08/05/2009 : 05:57:15
Dutch healthcare is fairly similar to the UK system I think? At least in terms of the patient interaction with GP and hospital, and public funding.
I agree regarding PFI. Our supposedly left of centre government has, in a fit of right wing short-termism, mortgaged off hospitals to the private sector at ridiculous long-term cost and encouraged more internal market development than Thatch could have dreamt of. What extra cash was thrown at the NHS over the last 5 years (and it was a huge amount) has brought some improvements such as significant waiting list cuts, but a lot of it has drifted into the bureaucratic nether regions. A great shame.
I'm eating M&Ms again Pot, don't have a go at me. |
| pot |
Posted - 08/05/2009 : 01:15:57
You know everyone complains about the NHS, and there are things that could be done better. But if you really think about it, compare things to how they were 100, 200, 300 years ago, if you were to take ill then, or break your leg, you were fucked! So it ain't a bad thing, and certainly I had a couple of minor accidents over the past couple of years, breaking bones in my hand and my foot, and the treatment I received was second to none. This WAS in Holland though, but it was paid for by the NHS in the the UK.
We could seriously do without the Private Finance Initiative though, and if our government stopped spending so much on freaking war, we wouldn't need this bullshit arrangement.
So really my problem isn't so much with the NHS, but the system in the first place, which i have previously iterated.
-cult-of-ray-wassabee- |
| Skatealex1 |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 09:06:31
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
There has never been any link with cancer from marijuana. not one case in it's long history of use
about other things with marijuana- check out my UNION thread. that documentary goes through everything |
| pot |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 09:06:00
Llamadance, I am going to take my responses to this over to skatealex's thread that he just started on this debate. From what I have read of that site, it sounds just about as ill-informed and biased as what you'd expect to hear on the talk to frank site.
-cult-of-ray-wassabee- |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 08:49:01
this seems a fair and balanced summary of cannabis and its effects.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx
there has been a study that shows cannabis use increases the risk of testicular cancer by up to double; the testes have THC receptors. Generally though, like the Psych summary says, physical risks come more from tobacco smoked with it.
Thing is pot, I guess I'd take you and what you say more seriously if you weren't loading it up as some kind of government/system conspiracy. It all comes across as a bit KoK-lite. Like you say, up to you - and I guess if we do suffer ailments as a consequence of our lifestyles (that goes for me as well as you) then we have the NHS as a safety net.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
| pot |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 07:15:19
It's cool man, I've just had my fair share of people telling me what's good and what's not, and that I should stop smoking cannabis. You get a bit tired of it.
The studies linking cannabis use and depression and schitzophrenia are about as plenty as the ones that discount any direct link. They key word, as you pointed out, is 'independent'. Most of the ones that claim to show a link are very heavily biased towards that result in the first place.
If you look into it, you could probably link just about anything with mental illness. It is a very complex issue.
I am not saying that some folks don't go crazy who smoke it, just that there are always many other factors involved, and that overall I believe cannabis to beneficial towards mental health.
It is not a substance to be taken lightly, but it is also not as dangerous as the prohibitionists would like you to believe.
I am sure if was to look around I could dig out plenty of articles on the many panacean benefits of cannabis, but it would be straying somewhat from the subject matter of the thread. I'll leave it to you to look around, I'm sure you could find some if you were to dig about.
At the end of the day, I know the benefits it has brought me, and it is up to me if I decide to use it, a point I think we both agree on anyway.
-cult-of-ray-wassabee- |
| Crackitybones |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 07:08:15
quote:
Originally posted by pot
Dude, you are just so wrong in most of what you say there.
M&Ms also (used to?) contain hydrogenated fats, so really you ain't in any position to lecture me on healthy foods. Other than that, peanuts and chocolate are good for you as part of healthy balanced diet.
Cannabis is not carcinogenic, in fact many studies show that it helps to reduce tumours in cancer victims. It is also not a depressant. These are myths propagated by the government as part of their bullshit 'war on drugs'.
Some people do become psychotic from smoking it, but if you look into each individual case you will find that it is a far complex issue that just them smoking cannabis, for example poor diet has a very strong influence in matters such as mental health. You donot see the government banning McDonalds restaurants though. Why don't they? Because they wouldn't know healthy if it came and bit them on the fucking ass.
There is NO substantial evidence to suggest that long term use of cannabis causes mental illness, unless it is accompanied with an overall unhealthy lifestyle as well, but in those cases you cannot really blame cannabis.
If anything, coupled with a healthy lifestyle, cannabis is very good for your mind and your body. Studies have shown that it can help to soften arteries reducing your chances of developing heart disease. I can say that, but something tells me that you are just not going to buy it, are you?
Saturated fats are only bad for you if you EAT TOO MUCH OF THEM! What is bad for you are these industrially processed margarines that are full of unhealthy polyunsaturated fat. Saturated fats are full of nutritional value, and by taking this nutrition out of the butter you are actually making it more unhealthy. What is important is that you burn off the fats you eat. This is really at the heart of the matter, pun intended. People don't get ill because they eat butter, they get ill because they eat butter, and then sit around all day on their fat asses.
-cult-of-ray-wassabee-
Hey man, my comment about M&Ms was a self-deprecating one designed to make light of the discussion!
I think we're actually on the same side regarding the fats, we're just coming from different angles. I totally agree with you that processed foods are crap and that saturated fats are a normal part of a healthy diet. Unfortunately I see the effects of diets too rich in saturated fats and refined carbohydrates and lacking in exercise every day.
As goes for cannabis, don't try to push me into the war on drugs camp because I have a liberal view and I don't soak up official propaganda. I'm not having a go at you Pot, or users of cannabis, I just think that sometimes arguments get so polarised the facts become distorted. I would be genuinely interested to see some decent scientific research to back up what you claim. I have read about the possible anti-tumour effects of some cannabinoids in the test tube, but you've got to agree this is a world away from saying that smoking pot stops you getting cancer! And regarding mental health, there are strong (independent) studies showing the association between cannabis use and depression and schizophrenia. |
| pot |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 05:50:53
Dude, you are just so wrong in most of what you say there.
M&Ms also (used to?) contain hydrogenated fats, so really you ain't in any position to lecture me on healthy foods. Other than that, peanuts and chocolate are good for you as part of healthy balanced diet.
Cannabis is not carcinogenic, in fact many studies show that it helps to reduce tumours in cancer victims. It is also not a depressant. These are myths propagated by the government as part of their bullshit 'war on drugs'.
Some people do become psychotic from smoking it, but if you look into each individual case you will find that it is a far complex issue that just them smoking cannabis, for example poor diet has a very strong influence in matters such as mental health. You donot see the government banning McDonalds restaurants though. Why don't they? Because they wouldn't know healthy if it came and bit them on the fucking ass.
There is NO substantial evidence to suggest that long term use of cannabis causes mental illness, unless it is accompanied with an overall unhealthy lifestyle as well, but in those cases you cannot really blame cannabis.
If anything, coupled with a healthy lifestyle, cannabis is very good for your mind and your body. Studies have shown that it can help to soften arteries reducing your chances of developing heart disease. I can say that, but something tells me that you are just not going to buy it, are you?
Saturated fats are only bad for you if you EAT TOO MUCH OF THEM! What is bad for you are these industrially processed margarines that are full of unhealthy polyunsaturated fat. Saturated fats are full of nutritional value, and by taking this nutrition out of the butter you are actually making it more unhealthy. What is important is that you burn off the fats you eat. This is really at the heart of the matter, pun intended. People don't get ill because they eat butter, they get ill because they eat butter, and then sit around all day on their fat asses.
-cult-of-ray-wassabee- |
| Crackitybones |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 05:25:30
quote:
Originally posted by pot
Why are you still going on about the lung cancer thing? I already retracted my comment about that.
If you think hash is bad for you, then good luck you mate, as I have already said I can't really do much to change peoples opinion on it.
Takeaway food is considered bad for you 'as a general rule' because most of it is sold by McDonalds and KFC and shite holes like that.
Just because it is quickly prepared and convenient does not always equate to it being unhealthy. And just because food is full of fat and salt does not mean it is unhealthy either. Fats and salts are very important aspect of a healthy diet, especially if you are exerting yourself ans sweating a lot. What is important is that you don't eat too much and you eat the right kinds of fats. Pilau rice, bombay potato, saag dal and things like that are not that high in fat, and are very good for you. Ask Deepak Chopra if you don't believe me.
There are plenty of fast food places that are extremely healthy, MAOZ falafel for example, it's just Mackie D's and places like that give it a bad name!
-cult-of-ray-wassabee-
Pot, I have to repeat my comment that just because we like things we shouldn't ignore the health risks. Cannabis can help control anxiety and pain and I would not choose to criticise its medical and social use by the well informed individual. But you can't ignore the fact that smoking cannabis is as carcinogenic as smoking tobacco and that it has a depressant effect on the brain. There is good evidence that long term use is associated with mental illness.
Same goes for curries. Love em. And I'm far more into nutrition than most and I'm likely to try to sort out, say, high cholesterol levels with diet and exercise rather than blindly prescribing long term medications, but c'mon, you can't say "just because food is full of fat and salt does not mean it is unhealthy either". For a start there is direct association between high salt intake and high blood pressure and heart disease. Secondly, the kinds of fats used in Indian cooking (at least in take aways) are generally saturated fats which are bad news especially if the diet is high in carbs (you can get away with eating more saturated fats if your carb intake is very low, because the body breaks down the fats to make glucose for fuel).
I agree with you that Indian food can be extremely healthy though - it all depends how it's cooked.
Anyway, I am writing this on a break during a 12 hour evening shift eating a packet on peanut M&Ms. They are not good for me but (1) I know it and (2) if anyone comes between me and that little yellow packet.... |
| pot |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 04:23:08
Why are you still going on about the lung cancer thing? I already retracted my comment about that.
If you think hash is bad for you, then good luck you mate, as I have already said I can't really do much to change peoples opinion on it.
Takeaway food is considered bad for you 'as a general rule' because most of it is sold by McDonalds and KFC and shite holes like that.
Just because it is quickly prepared and convenient does not always equate to it being unhealthy. And just because food is full of fat and salt does not mean it is unhealthy either. Fats and salts are very important aspect of a healthy diet, especially if you are exerting yourself ans sweating a lot. What is important is that you don't eat too much and you eat the right kinds of fats. Pilau rice, bombay potato, saag dal and things like that are not that high in fat, and are very good for you. Ask Deepak Chopra if you don't believe me.
There are plenty of fast food places that are extremely healthy, MAOZ falafel for example, it's just Mackie D's and places like that give it a bad name!
-cult-of-ray-wassabee- |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 04:04:04
You're the one who thinks hash is good for you and that non-smokers in the UK have a greater chance of lung cancer than Italian smokers. I suggest it's your views that are distorted. For crying out loud, why would you believe anything David Shayler said? Hasn't he said he's the messiah?
Takeaway food is not healthy as a general rule. Indian takeaway is full of fat and salt, much better if it's home-cooked. Why don't you research it? Saying that, if you do a hard, physical job and on back shift, I can appreciate the need for something substantial, plus my diet is hardly perfect.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
| pot |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 03:51:39
What do you mean indian takeaways are not healthy.
Of course it's healthy! Do you think I'd eat it if it wasn't? Maybe some indian takeaways are unhealthy, but generally speaking properly cooked indian food is about as healthy as it gets.
If I'm sweating my ass off lubbing huge chunks of metal around for 8 hours, I need something hot in my stomach. Especially if I'm constant back shift. I'm afraid sandwiches just don't cut it, not every day.
You have some really distorted views about things, did your parents make you watch Reefer Madness when you were growing up.
-cult-of-ray-wassabee- |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 03:22:57
ok, you've told me what's good about hash, tell me what's bad about it?
Indian takeaways are not healthy food, ffs, I was thinking more along the lines of taking food to work with you. 
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
| pot |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 02:14:00
Well, I don't know about the lung cancer rates. It's probably wrong, unless more people smoke in Italy than in the UK, which is very doubtful.
Anyway, I appreciate your good intentions to give me advice, but I'd really have to return to my earlier comments that you really don't understand cannabis, and you are basing your opinion on government propaganda which is just not true.
I don't smoke it everyday now, but when I live in Holland I do. However I donot smoke it all day everyday. This is not in anyway bad for me, I feel that overall it benefits me. There are scientific studies that show it is good for your cardiovascular system, helps to keep cancer at bay, it gives me energy and I even work out sometimes after smoking it, and all this goes towards maintaining a healthy body/healthy mind balance, which stops me being depressed.
People don't take me seriously at all when I tell them this, but it is based upon countless scientific studies AND my own personal experience with it.
And avoiding canteen food can be difficult, although in my last job I did try my best. I used to get indian takeaways delivered twice a week at work, at great expense. Well, it was about an hours wage, because I was earning a lot there.
As for exercise, I'm an exercise junkie, but I need a proper sleeping pattern. Once I get into it I cannot get enough of it!
I really only enjoy my hash when I feel that I have had a good weeks exercise. When I get high from smoking it, it really is only complementing the high I already feel from exercise and healthy living.
You wont hear many people in the NHS who agree with me on these points though.
-cult-of-ray-wassabee- |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 01:51:08
pot - a quick google tells me that UK and Italian lung cancer rates are about the same. So if all the Italian lung cancer is attributable to smoking then the maths doesn't hold up. If half of the Italian lung cancer rates are due to smoking that means that only non-smokers in the UK get lung cancer (by your Shayler quote). Doesn't quite work.
Anyway, look, I hope you get healthy - at the risk of pissing you off even more, I have to point out that you are saying you smoke hash (every day?) but ain't healthy. Maybe try giving it up for a bit? Heavy cannabis use can cause depression. Like you did with your career, when what you are doing isn't working, it's time to change it. There are ways of avoiding canteen food for instance. Go for a run, lots of good places down where you are (iirc)
I do agree that the requirements placed on people in this country are making life very difficult; time pressure being a huge issue.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
| pot |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 01:01:51
quote:
Originally posted by hammerhands
I would like to hear what the U.K. forumers think of their system.
If they ever think about it at all.
Oh we think about it, occasionally, in between the rest of the time when we are talking about how shit the weather is, and how much of a bunch of bastards our government are.
I heard something on the news recently about how the NHS here would deal with a real pandemic if we ever had, as opposed to a totally blown out of proportion by the media one.
Apparently in sensible countries like Germany they have a reserve of around 25 beds for every 10,000 people or something, to cope with emergencies like this. I can't remember the exact figure but the point I am making is a comparative one anyway.
The UK, on the other hand has something like 3 beds for every 10,000.
So if there really is a flu pandemic, we are stuffed.
This is all a result of the private finance initiative, which has been closing down hospitals in recent years and opening up newer smaller, more "manageable" ones.
-cult-of-ray-wassabee- |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 20:39:40
quote:
Originally posted by Crackitybones
I get better results through talking to people, discussing diet, exercise, using a little acupuncture, that sort of stuff...
... it's reasonably good VFM to the consumer, albeit not perfect. And if you are going to have free healthcare paid for by personal taxation you will never have a Rolls Royce service.
I'm very glad to hear you're appreciating getting better results having left the National Health Service. After a First Aid course with St John's I found new respect for the commitments made by those in the medical profession. What you guys have to learn and be responsible for is absolutley staggering. The very least you deserve for such commitment is the chance to do enough good. A chance often lacking in the NHS.
As critical as I may get of the NHS I can't deny it's still reasonably good value for money within its limitations. Especially when you consider the alternatives. Our American friends for example seem much more anxious about their healthcare future.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| Crackitybones |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 16:12:13
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
quote:
Originally posted by Crackitybones
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
quote:
Originally posted by hammerhands
I would like to hear what the U.K. forumers think of their system.
If they ever think about it at all.
I can live with the idea of universal health care but the healthcare culture in the UK stinks, very poor standards, negligence rife...
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo
That's quite a strong point of view Trobrianders! The NHS is a massive organisation and whilst there are problems in many areas, the overall standard of care is very good. Negligence isn't "rife" at all. We have good systems of critical incident reporting and patient advocacy and increasingly stringent regulation of health care professionals.
I've worked as a doctor in many countries and right now I'm working in a hospital that styles itself as one of the most exclusive in the middle east, but just between you, me and anyone else that happens to read this, I'd still go back to the NHS if I was really ill!
Should healthcare be free? Look at the history of the NHS. It was founded over 50 years ago by a socialist post-war government (and I mean a real socialist government, not a modern "centre-left" outfit) who passionately believed in state-run everything, in a country up to its eyes in debt where your average Joe didn't have much spare cash. The founding principle was sound - that the state should provide free healthcare to its citizens. Jump forward conveniently to 2009 and try to abolish the NHS now - no chance. Why? Because it's free and no political party of any persuasion will take away a beloved institution (which also happens to employ over a million citizens), despite the fact that it swallows up billions in taxes.
Should it be free in the US? I'm no expert on your system but I think it will be difficult to dismantle your healthcare culture which seems pretty tightly sewn up by the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. If big business has been milking that cash cow for such a long time it won't let go easily, as Hilary Clinton found last time around. You'll also have to get your national head around the huge potential tax burden when most people want a reduction in personal taxes.
Bones, smart nick for a doctor. Thanks for your considered reply. It's true the systems in place are improving and tending more toward the patient but I still maintain there's a poor culture of healthcare provision in the UK which makes it harder still to meet the requirements of those systems. And so you see rising claims against the NHS in a country where many are as deferential toward the medical profession as they were in Dickens' day.
It's the little unrecorded neglects born of a poor culture that do much of the harm here. It's rare to find a general practitioner who will even attempt to make a proper diagnosis. The inference is clear; 'come back when you're sicker, then we can really do something for you', because that's how the NHS was always geared to meet its universal health care promise of 'get really sick and we'll keep you from dying'. You must already know the comparative stats that show the UK behind on many of the indicators despite the huge budgets. Why is that? Victorian hangover I say. And Bevan's well intentioned quantitative provisions didn't really do British healthcare too mamy qualitative favors.
Would I rather take my chances in a high end Middle Eastern hospital? Probably not but how much is that really saying? If I needed it and had the money I'd go to America or Europe.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo
You're dead right Tro - it's always been the National Sickness Service! That's why I've chosen not to work in the NHS again, at least not as a regular GP - because it's all too reactive. The average GP gets so little time with the patient that there isn't enough time to get a real feeling for what is happening to someone and there is so much pressure to number crunch ("payment by results"). People are shoved quickly into little diagnostic boxes and then the prescription pad comes out. I get better results through talking to people, discussing diet, exercise, using a little acupuncture, that sort of stuff, but unfortunately that all takes time and to coin a phrase, time is money. The NHS is free after all. And I think that was my point - that considering it is free (taxes notwithstanding) it's reasonably good VFM to the consumer, albeit not perfect. And if you are going to have free healthcare paid for by personal taxation you will never have a Rolls Royce service.
Pot, your quote about lung cancer is way off the mark, but I get your general point - environment is incredibly important to health and think there are many factors we don't understand or ignore. I hope you manage to get to feeling better again. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news though - smoking pot is just as harmful as smoking tobacco! I also think it should be legalised, on the basis of informed choice, but I don't think we should look at it through rose tinted glasses and ignore the bad effects it can have just because it makes us feel good. |
| pot |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 11:13:10
I haven't got any links, I just heard it once. It was David Shaylor on TV actually, just before he got sent down for breaching the official secrets act or something. I don't know if it is right or not, but certainly it could well be. Anyway, it's besides the point.
There was one other guy who worked in the same area as me who was off sick for months before I quit. No-one knew what he was suffering from, but he had a lack of energy, same as I had when I quit. He didn't have to quit though, he got sick benefits, but I didn't because I was a contractor. (I worked in Holland because I decided to move there for a while, as it is the only place I know where you can get something to smoke that isn't laced with something toxic like plastic or glass dust, and something that actually gets you high!)
They do say that welders live short lives, basically if you are one, then you have to accept that you are slowly poisoning yourself. You can see it in the complexions of the people who work there, most of them look like walking corpses. I was working a shot blasting machine, which produces microscopic particles of metal dust that are very harmful.
As a contractor there I have no come back on anything. I spoke to doctors a couple of times who assured me there was nothing wrong with me, but I didn't feel right and as it turns out there was something wrong with me. It took me something of the order of 10-15 visits to doctors, dentists, specialists before I finally worked out why my lip kept swelling up! None of them thought to consider the possibility it might be a food allergy, which is quite shocking. I was the one who finally worked it out, and asked for a test, and it turned out I was right.
People develop allergies to concrete through working in the building industry, and have to change their career. I think that the environment I was in stressed my system to the point where it triggered off some sort of response which ended up in me developing these allergies, or certainly them worsening anyway. It all started during the hay fever season last year.
Whether or not you accept what I am saying, I know that it is the system that is the causes of my health problems. 2 years ago I was full of energy, I worked out and was in really good shape. Now, 1 year after I quit, I am still struggling to get into a healthy balance again, but that is also partly to do with my present situation, namely that I live in a noisy environment which is constantly disrupting my sleep.
I hope to get back into a fitness regime again soon, and I know I will. But it just pisses me off greatly that I am suffering because of this. I don't want to work in a fucking industry that contributes to so much environmental destruction and is so unethical. I want to live a healthy, sustainable existence, I want to do a hard days graft 3 or 4 days a week and go home a put my feet up and drink a beer and smoke some hash. This is a very healthy routine for me, but I find that the system rarely offers me the opportunity to live such a healthy balanced existence.
I am forced to work in these unhealthy environments, eat unhealthy canteen food and also sometimes work when I should otherwise be outside taking advantage of the sunshine. The sun does not shine very often in the part of the world, so when it does you make the best of it. If I don't get enough sun during the summer, I am fucked for the rest of the winter, the SAD usually sets in about january.
Before I did this I worked in the semiconductor industry, in research and development, but i found myself getting depressed all the time and had no energy and suffered from insomnia because I was indoors, sitting down all day, not getting enough exercise. So I decided to change my job, and move to Holland at the same time. It worked for a while, in fact I totally transformed myself, but eventually the job I found myself doing took it's toll on my health in a different way.
This is why I believe that the system is causing a lot of health problems in society. It is one example, but there are plenty of more. If you really think it about it deeply enough, it is pretty evident that this is the case.
We have ended up getting ourselves into these destructive patterns, and we are all collectively powerless to do anything to change them.
-cult-of-ray-wassabee- |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 09:59:02
quote:
Someone who smokes 20 cigs a day in Italy is less likely to get lung cancer than someone in the UK who doesn't smoke at all, because there are other factors involved such as diet and climate.
I'll need a clinical paper for that.
You're wrong about my attitude to marijuana, I think it should be legalised. I deliberately left the 'smoking is a mug's game' ambiguous as I know that you can smoke marijuana without tobacco.
And re: your allergies, you're blaming the 'system', you said that, yet there's a good chance it's not the system's fault. Even a 1% chance of something is a 'definite possibility'. Maybe your childhood was excessively clean? Anyone else in the factory have to quit? Maybe you just got unlucky.
I'm not patronising you, you're blaming a system that may not be to blame, which sounds like you are feeling sorry for yourself, looking for a scapegoat - sometimes shit happens and there's no fathomable reason. Maybe that's not the case, who knows, but you're even blaming a factory for more allergies. Did you talk to occupational health? Did the symptoms continue after you quit your job? Maybe there were other reasons? I'm just having a pop at you because you were telling the system to go fuck itself, when it's not necessarily the system's fault.
As for the general thread topic, I believe in the NHS and healthcare for all through taxation, but I do think it could be run better - but then most industries could.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
| pot |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 07:50:04
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
fwiw, you mentioned smoking. And you are also making poor conclusions about what I do and don't know. Little surprise given that you think the system caused your ailments.
You still can't say that your intolerances were caused by adoption or the system. There is no definitive way to prove it. Just because breast feeding is important does not mean that it would have prevented your problems. So stop feeling sorry for yourself and blaming people.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition
No mate, based on what you said i think my conclusions were pretty accurate. You said smoking is a 'mugs game', without even bothering to specify what it was being smoked. I assume you were refering to MJ since that is what I had previously stated.
To generalise in the way that you did suggests to me that your opinion is heavily based upon the bullshit propaganda surrounding the use of MJ.
Yes tobacco, is bad for you, which is why I donot touch the stuff. But the reason it is so bad has a lot to do with the quality of the tobacco being sold, the chemicals put into it and the fact that tobacco companies donot extract the tar as they are supposed.
The red indians used to smoke tobacco, and found great medicinal value in it actually. So even the generally held belief that tobacco is bad for you can be called into question.
Someone who smokes 20 cigs a day in Italy is less likely to get lung cancer than someone in the UK who doesn't smoke at all, because there are other factors involved such as diet and climate.
Also, I didn't say there was any way to prove my allergies are a direct result of my upbringing, but it's certainly a definite possibility. Another possibility is that I spent a year working in a factory inhaling metal dust particles, which I believe may have stressed my immune system and triggered it off. Certainly the fact that I had to quit my job last year and suffered sinus problems and hay fever symptoms throughout the whole winter do suggest that this is the case.
So would you say that was related to the system?
Oh, and please don't patronise me by saying stuff like "stop feeling sorry for yourself".
-cult-of-ray-wassabee- |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 07:15:01
quote:
Originally posted by Crackitybones
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
quote:
Originally posted by hammerhands
I would like to hear what the U.K. forumers think of their system.
If they ever think about it at all.
I can live with the idea of universal health care but the healthcare culture in the UK stinks, very poor standards, negligence rife...
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo
That's quite a strong point of view Trobrianders! The NHS is a massive organisation and whilst there are problems in many areas, the overall standard of care is very good. Negligence isn't "rife" at all. We have good systems of critical incident reporting and patient advocacy and increasingly stringent regulation of health care professionals.
I've worked as a doctor in many countries and right now I'm working in a hospital that styles itself as one of the most exclusive in the middle east, but just between you, me and anyone else that happens to read this, I'd still go back to the NHS if I was really ill!
Should healthcare be free? Look at the history of the NHS. It was founded over 50 years ago by a socialist post-war government (and I mean a real socialist government, not a modern "centre-left" outfit) who passionately believed in state-run everything, in a country up to its eyes in debt where your average Joe didn't have much spare cash. The founding principle was sound - that the state should provide free healthcare to its citizens. Jump forward conveniently to 2009 and try to abolish the NHS now - no chance. Why? Because it's free and no political party of any persuasion will take away a beloved institution (which also happens to employ over a million citizens), despite the fact that it swallows up billions in taxes.
Should it be free in the US? I'm no expert on your system but I think it will be difficult to dismantle your healthcare culture which seems pretty tightly sewn up by the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. If big business has been milking that cash cow for such a long time it won't let go easily, as Hilary Clinton found last time around. You'll also have to get your national head around the huge potential tax burden when most people want a reduction in personal taxes.
Bones, smart nick for a doctor. Thanks for your considered reply. It's true the systems in place are improving and tending more toward the patient but I still maintain there's a poor culture of healthcare provision in the UK which makes it harder still to meet the requirements of those systems. And so you see rising claims against the NHS in a country where many are as deferential toward the medical profession as they were in Dickens' day.
It's the little unrecorded neglects born of a poor culture that do much of the harm here. It's rare to find a general practitioner who will even attempt to make a proper diagnosis. The inference is clear; 'come back when you're sicker, then we can really do something for you', because that's how the NHS was always geared to meet its universal health care promise of 'get really sick and we'll keep you from dying'. You must already know the comparative stats that show the UK behind on many of the indicators despite the huge budgets. Why is that? Victorian hangover I say. And Bevan's well intentioned quantitative provisions didn't really do British healthcare too mamy qualitative favors.
Would I rather take my chances in a high end Middle Eastern hospital? Probably not but how much is that really saying? If I needed it and had the money I'd go to America or Europe.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 05:12:45
fwiw, you mentioned smoking. And you are also making poor conclusions about what I do and don't know. Little surprise given that you think the system caused your ailments.
You still can't say that your intolerances were caused by adoption or the system. There is no definitive way to prove it. Just because breast feeding is important does not mean that it would have prevented your problems. So stop feeling sorry for yourself and blaming people.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
|
|
