British rise in STD's blamed on National Health Care system

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Stelliform, Jul 28, 2004.

  1. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #1
    I read this article in my paper, and found part of it on-line. The whole article is about the rise of STD's in Britian, but I thought I would share how some people blame the long waits due to the national health care system.

    Link
     
  2. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #2
    I can't imagine our current system would be any more effective. FWIW, I join the uninsured masses in three days. What good would no waiting be if I can't afford it?
     
  3. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    And is your point that the only way to make it more affordable is to nationalize it? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I'm going to guess that's your stance (judging by the communist thing and all).

    Just curious.
     
  4. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #4
    I'm guessing you're not a fan of irony. I am.
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    I have substantial prescription drug costs every month, and am not even eligible for COBRA, so my only recourse is to, well, go without.
     
  6. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #6
    Well I'm new here, and judging by every post I've read from you in this forum, it's fairly apparent to me you have communistic (socialistic, liberal, take your pick) beliefs.

    So uh... I guess I'm lost... do you want to explain the irony?

    And you didn't answer my question, do you think national health care is the only (or at least best, I suppose) solution to making it affordable? I just wanted to know your stance.

    This is sort of a topic on health care, so let's try to talk about it :)
     
  7. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    The British system is only one type of national health system. Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, France and the Scandinavian countries have systems that work well at a much lower cost without the waiting lists. Don't go throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

    In Germany, the approach is that everyone is insured and the insurance is issued by private companies for those who work, only the aged, the disabled and the unemployed are covered under a national health care plan. The key is is that EVERYONE is insured not just a select few, which means costs are shared across the board. Think of a public utility like a water company or electricity or for that matter the federal law requiring all vehicle owners to have liability insurance.

    Look north to Canada and you'll see that they are having problems with their health care system as well. While there may be waiting lists, no Canadian will have to declare bankruptcy due to obscene medical bills.

    There is no perfect system but without a doubt the US ranks very low on the list of the systems that work best.

    I don't hear you crying foul about the FAA or the Interstate highway system, why the outrage over a national health care plan?
     
  8. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #8
    Oh no doubt, I think they only debate lies in the way to fix the problem. I don't think any of us (Rep or Dem) would say our current health insurance system is fine :)
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    Communism is not synonymous with socialism and liberalism. I suggest you learn a little more about each system before throwing me into the "pinko" stereotype. I'm a Social Democrat in the European vein.

    You already did it for me.

    I believe everyone should be guaranteed healthcare while maintaining a standard of care befitting of our great nation and suitable for its people.

    As it is now, neither is true: our health system is unavailable to many who need it and is also not the standard of the world.

    Do you disagree with my view?
     
  10. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #10
    Nope, I don't really disagree...

    However I imagine our solutions conflict... you want my answers? Well, it's late and I'm lazy... so feel free to just look for yourself as to what Bush proposes we do. Yes those are simply Bush's talking points, but they sound good to me, and hey, at least I linked and didn't copy and paste ;)

    That's all I got for now... sleepy sleepy =_=
     
  11. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    I think Bush's solution of making healthcare "more" accessable/affordable is simply lip service.

    I believe every American should have the right to guaranteed healthcare, it's clear Bush does not.
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    Hey, give Bush a break. His plan might get health care to 1% of Americans who don't have it.

    First rule of politics: Set goals so low that they can easily be met.
     
  13. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #13
    And even though I feel sorry for you in the fact that you have to dump your healthcare, I don't think I should be forking my tax money over to pay for insurance for you :)

    That would not constitute a democracy, that is socialism, when you pay taxes up the arse and everything is given to you freely... no thanks.

    Hopefully with Bush's plan, YOU would be able to afford YOUR OWN healthcare yet again.

    Like IJ said, maybe you'd be in that lucky 1% (oh your saracasm is so cute IJ ;))
     
  14. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    how about this: a national healthcare plan that, due to its size, is able to negotiate substantially lower rates than an individual could.

    i pay $400/mo for health insurance, as a self-employed individual. due to an existing condition, i'm uninsurable except by a state of IL program. i'm one funding cut away from having no health insurance available, at any price.

    i'm in good health and am a productive member of society. is it really in society's interest to render me uninsured, such that after my first major health incident, i declare bankruptcy and become a burden on society?

    i'm happy to pay my premiums, i just think self-employed rates are too high.
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    I know, but I try not to let it go to my head.

    In all seriousness (for a change), my point is, nibbling around the edges is not going to fix this problem.
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    If you have health insurance, do you feel that others in your plan who make claims have taken your "forked over" money? Afterall, if a cancer drug costs $3000 a month and a patient pays the same rates as you do, they're obviously taking advantage of your money.

    And you don't pay out the ass for heathcare now?

    I don't see anything wrong with paying what you can afford. I don't advocate free healthcare for everyone, which I knew was going to be how my view was interpreted.

    Millionaires should not be given free healthcare. Those who are already insured should not be given free healthcare. But those who are uninsured because they either cannot afford it or cannot find an insurer to cover them should be guaranteed healthcare. If that means it's free for those who cannot afford a singe cent, so be it. No one should be forced to choose between death, suffering, going bankrupt, going hungry, going cold or losing their housing because they cannot find or afford the means to be healthy.

    And I simply cannot afford it at the prices available, so I must do without.

    Or to curse me with physical suffering (I will literally physically suffer without meds)?
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    BTW, democracy and socialism are not incompatible. They are representative of the spearate systems of government and economy.
     
  18. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #18
    you're comparing apples and oranges

    1. we don't really live in a true democracy. more like a representative republic.

    2. democracy is more comparable to communism. socialism is comparable to capitalism

    a democracy is not inherently capitalistic

    and god forbid everyone would have enough food to eat, shelter, healthcare, etc... that'd be so nuts
     
  19. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #19
    I do not mean to pry but zim and 'brit, what kind of medical problems do you have that involve being nearly uninsureable and/or requiring prescription care maintainance?

    If it is too personal of a question, I understand...but I know that you zim are only a tad older than myself...'brit, your age is unknown to me.

    I am just curious as it will add some human element to my constant grappling with this issue...thanks.
     
  20. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    Why should free healthcare not be available to millionaires? Even in the communist UK, millionaires still tend to pay for their own healthcare by choice: the service is quicker and you get better food.

    My condolences. Having looked after a terminally-ill child for nine years, and having simultaneously gone bankrupt, I am extremely grateful that, on top of the anguish that caused, we did not have to forego decent medical treatment for him due to economic circumstances.
     
  22. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #23
    hm 500 $

    here we pay 3,7 percent per month,at least in my 'land' (kinda like 'states' but on much smaller scale) which i already consider very much

    as long as you earn less than 10.000 $ ( 13.500 actually but i take exchange rate into account) you would have your family insured for less ...but of course it's only speculation...
    perhaps you got very premium treatment..i don't know

    let's face it: national healthcare is a priori not cheaper but not more expensive either... if you want you can choose a private insurance and get premium treatment..if you don't have much money you are still secured...

    here more than 99% are insured and those who are not don't know that they are not insured at the moment (and most are temporary)

    some may not like national health care systems because they sound 'socialistic' or 'communistic'... but hey it works ;)
     
  23. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #24
    Well, 43 million Americans don't have health insurance. That's a bit under 15% of all Americans. How many of those people do you think get pre-emptive care for STDs? I'd guess not that many. Do you think that could contribute to a rise in STDs?

    Well it just so happens rates of many STDs have been on the rise in the US. In fact, if you live in a major city, you might have seen the many public service advertisements advising regular siphilis testing. Siphilis has been on the rise in many major American cities. Google has a wealth of links on this info, if you are so inclined.

    And it just so happens that the group in which siphilis rates have gone up the most are the poorer groups in the US. Those same groups also have the least access to healthcare and insurace.

    Coincidence?

    This "national healthcare is the cause of our problems" attitude strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction. I've read about the problems with Britains healthcare system, but as others here have mentioned, that isn't the ONLY alternative to our current system which is just as bad (likely worse) than Britains.

    Taft
     
  24. 2jaded2care macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #25
    Not a complete solution, but... All those here in the US who think we should just outright ban broadcast commercials advertising prescription drugs, please raise your hands. (Mine is up.)

    Why are the pharmaceuticals advertising to us anyway? To doctors, sure. But I think if I were a doctor and my patient were to ask me if "Placebocor" was right for him or her, I'd be tempted to slap said patient... (And maybe the drug costs would go down too, huh?)

    Sorry, pet peeve...
     

Share This Page