Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Staenwald]

they let them die of easily treatable conditions.
not treating someone properly is letting them die.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/171 ... _many_die/

Stabilize and bounce policies kill every day

My Father has heart problems. Without treatment he could have died. The treatment to help him was very expensive and non of in my family had the money at the moment to pay for it. This is what we did. We set up a plan with the hospital x amount of money for y amount of months. Any hospital would do this. Hospitals dont care if you have the money up front. This study is sadly mistaken. If anything government run hospitals in the UK and Canada let people die because it is either "not worth tax payer dollars" or "untreatable" (like cancer).

In the Uk the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs because they are too expensive to the tax payer. yeah- they'd cost £2000 a month for the taxpayer. it's not economically feasible. and they'd only give you maybe a few months more life. It should be youra and your family's choice whether it's worth the price of you living that much longer. And it shouldnt be the obligation to keep an untreatable person alive at the expense of the living (taxpayers) if they don't want to. It should be value judgment, and sometimes you just gotta accept that reality is harsh, and if something is untreatable- thats just the way it goes unfortunately.

[Mercator Terra]

My Father has heart problems. Without treatment he could have died. The treatment to help him was very expensive and non of in my family had the money at the moment to pay for it. This is what we did. We set up a plan with the hospital x amount of money for y amount of months. Any hospital would do this. Hospitals dont care if you have the money up front. This study is sadly mistaken. If anything government run hospitals in the UK and Canada let people die because it is either "not worth tax payer dollars" or "untreatable" (like cancer).

In the Uk the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs because they are too expensive to the tax payer. yeah- they'd cost £2000 a month for the taxpayer. it's not economically feasible. and they'd only give you maybe a few months more life. It should be youra and your family's choice whether it's worth the price of you living that much longer. And it shouldnt be the obligation to keep an untreatable person alive at the expense of the living (taxpayers) if they don't want to. It should be value judgment, and sometimes you just gotta accept that reality is harsh, and if something is untreatable- thats just the way it goes unfortunately.

Im not advocating any government run healthcare system.

[Staenwald]

In the Uk the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs because they are too expensive to the tax payer. yeah- they'd cost £2000 a month for the taxpayer. it's not economically feasible. and they'd only give you maybe a few months more life. It should be youra and your family's choice whether it's worth the price of you living that much longer. And it shouldnt be the obligation to keep an untreatable person alive at the expense of the living (taxpayers) if they don't want to. It should be value judgment, and sometimes you just gotta accept that reality is harsh, and if something is untreatable- thats just the way it goes unfortunately.

Im not advocating any government run healthcare system.

i was agreeing with you

[St George of England]

My Father has heart problems. Without treatment he could have died. The treatment to help him was very expensive and non of in my family had the money at the moment to pay for it. This is what we did. We set up a plan with the hospital x amount of money for y amount of months. Any hospital would do this. Hospitals dont care if you have the money up front. This study is sadly mistaken. If anything government run hospitals in the UK and Canada let people die because it is either "not worth tax payer dollars" or "untreatable" (like cancer).

In the Uk the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs because they are too expensive to the tax payer. yeah- they'd cost £2000 a month for the taxpayer. it's not economically feasible. and they'd only give you maybe a few months more life. It should be youra and your family's choice whether it's worth the price of you living that much longer. And it shouldnt be the obligation to keep an untreatable person alive at the expense of the living (taxpayers) if they don't want to. It should be value judgment, and sometimes you just gotta accept that reality is harsh, and if something is untreatable- thats just the way it goes unfortunately.

Woah! Some accuracy is needed here. It's not, "the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs". It's "certain NHS Trusts refuse certain patient certain cancer drugs because they are too expensive on the tax payer".

[Staenwald]

In the Uk the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs because they are too expensive to the tax payer. yeah- they'd cost £2000 a month for the taxpayer. it's not economically feasible. and they'd only give you maybe a few months more life. It should be youra and your family's choice whether it's worth the price of you living that much longer. And it shouldnt be the obligation to keep an untreatable person alive at the expense of the living (taxpayers) if they don't want to. It should be value judgment, and sometimes you just gotta accept that reality is harsh, and if something is untreatable- thats just the way it goes unfortunately.

Woah! Some accuracy is needed here. It's not, "the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs". It's "certain NHS Trusts refuse certain patient certain cancer drugs because they are too expensive on the tax payer".

ok sorry yes it's NICE and the £2000 a month cancer drugs

[Mercator Terra]

In the Uk the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs because they are too expensive to the tax payer. yeah- they'd cost £2000 a month for the taxpayer. it's not economically feasible. and they'd only give you maybe a few months more life. It should be youra and your family's choice whether it's worth the price of you living that much longer. And it shouldnt be the obligation to keep an untreatable person alive at the expense of the living (taxpayers) if they don't want to. It should be value judgment, and sometimes you just gotta accept that reality is harsh, and if something is untreatable- thats just the way it goes unfortunately.

Woah! Some accuracy is needed here. It's not, "the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs". It's "certain NHS Trusts refuse certain patient certain cancer drugs because they are too expensive on the tax payer".

Then why isnt it privatized? Why must the tax payer pay for everyone?

[Staenwald]

Woah! Some accuracy is needed here. It's not, "the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs". It's "certain NHS Trusts refuse certain patient certain cancer drugs because they are too expensive on the tax payer".

Then why isnt it privatized? Why must the tax payer pay for everyone?

We are in a bad economic situation in the UK. the NHS is one of the biggest monopoly organisations in the world and one of the worlds biggest employers. We'd need to downsize progressively. And the question why? collectivism my friend.

[Sibirsky]

My Father has heart problems. Without treatment he could have died. The treatment to help him was very expensive and non of in my family had the money at the moment to pay for it. This is what we did. We set up a plan with the hospital x amount of money for y amount of months. Any hospital would do this. Hospitals dont care if you have the money up front. This study is sadly mistaken. If anything government run hospitals in the UK and Canada let people die because it is either "not worth tax payer dollars" or "untreatable" (like cancer).

In the Uk the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs because they are too expensive to the tax payer. yeah- they'd cost £2000 a month for the taxpayer. it's not economically feasible. and they'd only give you maybe a few months more life. It should be youra and your family's choice whether it's worth the price of you living that much longer. And it shouldnt be the obligation to keep an untreatable person alive at the expense of the living (taxpayers) if they don't want to. It should be value judgment, and sometimes you just gotta accept that reality is harsh, and if something is untreatable- thats just the way it goes unfortunately.

Same in New Zealand. New Zealand used to be far stricter than even the NHS. There was some breast cancer drug that was very expensive, it was covered in some cases by the NHS but not by New Zealand's system.

[Sibirsky]

Woah! Some accuracy is needed here. It's not, "the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs". It's "certain NHS Trusts refuse certain patient certain cancer drugs because they are too expensive on the tax payer".

ok sorry yes it's NICE and the £2000 a month cancer drugs

That acronym is so out there.

[St George of England]

Woah! Some accuracy is needed here. It's not, "the NHS refuses patients cancer drugs". It's "certain NHS Trusts refuse certain patient certain cancer drugs because they are too expensive on the tax payer".

Then why isnt it privatized? Why must the tax payer pay for everyone?

Because privatized heathcare systems generally return lower survival rates, especially in cases of cancer.

[Staenwald]

Then why isnt it privatized? Why must the tax payer pay for everyone?

Because privatized heathcare systems generally return lower survival rates, especially in cases of cancer.

quite debatable.

[St George of England]

Because privatized heathcare systems generally return lower survival rates, especially in cases of cancer.

quite debatable.

*sigh*

Do I have to get my 'Defence of the NHS' Post out?

[Reoy]

Because privatized heathcare systems generally return lower survival rates, especially in cases of cancer.

quite debatable.

Actually it isn't. That is testable. Provide statistics and see if there is a correlation.

[Sibirsky]

Then why isnt it privatized? Why must the tax payer pay for everyone?

Because privatized heathcare systems generally return lower survival rates, especially in cases of cancer.

The US has higher cancer survival rates than the UK

[Reoy]

Because privatized heathcare systems generally return lower survival rates, especially in cases of cancer.

The US has higher cancer survival rates than the UK

Yet the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than the UK and Canada.

[Ixzara]

The US has higher cancer survival rates than the UK

Yet the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than the UK and Canada.

And shorter life expectancy.

[Sibirsky]

The US has higher cancer survival rates than the UK

Yet the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than the UK and Canada.

The US has higher infant mortality rates because it has a different policy in dealing with problem pregnancies.

[Sibirsky]

Yet the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than the UK and Canada.

And shorter life expectancy.

Because it has higher vehicular fatality rates, homicide rates, obesity rates...

[Reoy]

Yet the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than the UK and Canada.

The US has higher infant mortality rates because it has a different policy in dealing with problem pregnancies.

*stares down*
I'll start providing links when you do

[Sibirsky]

The US has higher infant mortality rates because it has a different policy in dealing with problem pregnancies.

*stares down*
I'll start providing links when you do

What's the point? Are you going to admit that private care is better? Of course not. I'm not wasting my time on this.

[St George of England]

The US has higher infant mortality rates because it has a different policy in dealing with problem pregnancies.

*stares down*
I'll start providing links when you do

I have links in Defence of the NHS post, which I'll post soon, having web trouble.

[St George of England]

*stares down*
I'll start providing links when you do

I have links in Defence of the NHS post, which I'll post soon, having web trouble.

Not really a post, more of a paragraph. Meh:

That's why we have a higher life expectancy than USA, Ireland, South Korea, Portugal, Denmark and equal to Germany. Lower cancer mortality rates than France, the US, Italy, Holland, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. A lower infant mortality rate than 189 countries and the wider EU including the US, Canada and Portugal, as well as lower a Maternal Mortality Rate than the US, Germany and France.

[The Black Plains]

Yet the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than the UK and Canada.

And shorter life expectancy.

This has more to do with drug usage and crime rates than health care.

The US has higher cancer survival rates than the UK

Yet the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than the UK and Canada.

Because we consider an infant mortality to be a death any time from the fourth quarter of the third trimester onward. Most other countries do not. WE do this because WE have technology and methods to SAVE babies in trouble while they are still in the fucking womb. We set higher standards for our doctors because we have BETTER TECHNOLOGY TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS! See what sibirsky said.

[The Black Plains]

I have links in Defence of the NHS post, which I'll post soon, having web trouble.

Not really a post, more of a paragraph. Meh:

That's why we have a higher life expectancy than USA, Ireland, South Korea, Portugal, Denmark and equal to Germany. Lower cancer mortality rates than France, the US, Italy, Holland, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. A lower infant mortality rate than 189 countries and the wider EU including the US, Canada and Portugal, as well as lower a Maternal Mortality Rate than the US, Germany and France.

That post is wrong, if the NHS held itself to the same standards that the American Medical Journal does for infant mortality, you would be hopelessly behind us. I can find the AMJ report for you saying so, but it won't be pretty. Gimme like ten minutes.

[Sibirsky]