Turn on thread page Beta

The Great injustices of the American medical system watch

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    People seem to forget that you don't actually have to socialize medicine to make it availible for anyone. I'm against socialized medicine as it is in Sweden. Inefficient, still costs money though we pay huge amount of taxes. And UKers, don't for a second think that NHS will remain in the shape it is now without the government raising taxes or making you pay for your services. Sweden's healthcare system was as "free" as NHS is today 20 years ago, now you essentially have to pay something for everything that is not life threatening.

    Edit: like I said before, privatized health system with nationalized insurance is the best way to go. The best of both worlds.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kettensägenmassaker)
    No, it's not. You go making erroneous claims about bad treatment with no links or evidence to support your argument and you expect me to do the groundwork for you? That's not how it works. The OP, by initiating allegations, is then obligated to prove them - the OP's claims aren't assumed to be true just because this site is hosted on a UK server. That's absolute rubbish.

    Furthermore, by disagreeing with his statements I am committing libel only if what I write is defamatory or willfully false. As my opinion is neither, the burden of proof still rests with the OP.
    willfully false in the U.S. not the UK. if you would like to read about a case that illustrates my point beautifully i suggest you google search McDonald libel case UK....

    http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/.../19970309.html

    McDonald's had hoped to benefit from Britain's arcane libel laws, laws that so blatantly favor corporate interests that they might have been drafted by the company itself. In the United States the plaintiff in a libel suit is required to prove that the statements in question are false. In Britain the burden of proof is entirely on the defendant, who is required to back up each statement with "primary sources" such as firsthand witnesses or official documents.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The image in which the documentary portrays the medical system in the US is seemingly spiteful. But what I don't understand is that if the US pours in large sums of money on improving medical care, but its medical care is ranked so low in comparison to other European countries, where is the money diverted towards?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catchetat)
    The image in which the documentary portrays the medical system in the US is seemingly spiteful. But what I don't understand is that if the US pours in large sums of money on improving medical care, but its medical care is ranked so low in comparison to other European countries, where is the money diverted towards?
    Largely into the pockets of a select minority (although some would disagree with me strongly).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Select minority as in?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catchetat)
    Select minority as in?
    Bosses of pharmaceuticals, hospitals etc. The whole health system is largely run as a business.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    If only we could find some kind of compromise between the ridiculously heartless American healthcare... and the ridiculously inefficient British healthcare *Takes out a small telescope and looks across the British channel to Europe*

    Arrrr matey I see nationalized health insurance being given used for private health providers. Arrr.
    Actually ours is highly efficient given the limited resources it runs on. Despite the tory (and even labour) protests about the massive increase in NHS spending with little gain, the fact is that for decades spending on the NHS as a percentage of GDP has been woefully small comapred to every other 1st world country - including america.

    Just like with the tube lines, you can't throw money into the system and expect instant results. The infrastructure improvements, reshaping of entire areas, buying in and training up on new equipment - all takes a long time.

    Hell, when you look how many CT scanners we have per head of population compared to france or america. You can't just buy extra scanners. You need extra radiologists. Radiographers. New buildings/areas to put the scanners. Generators and IT infrastructure to deal with the scanners.

    Etc etc
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Kettensägenmassaker)
    1. You're substituting your opinion on justice for fact. There is no "clear" answer. It's not like there's a big blinking handbook that says "medical systems for democracies" with a big "READ THIS, US!" sign on it that Americans were just too illiterate to understand. If nobody disagreed with you, then the American system would already have been overturned.

    2. The life expectancy in America is low for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which being that we're all so damn fat (don't even get me started on rampant obesity, it's one of my pet peeves). Low life expectancy can't be attributed to a single attribute, and it is naive of you to even make that assertion.

    3. Quality of life is subjective.
    Actually Quality of Life can and has been objectified - a practice brought over from the US.

    Fact is the american system works great for those who are well. It severely punishes the poor and the chronically ill. If you fall ill before you get yourself into a good insurance scheme you are stuffed.

    The facts are simple - given the amount of money americans put into their health system, only a relatively small amount of the population get something good out.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    Actually ours is highly efficient given the limited resources it runs on. Despite the tory (and even labour) protests about the massive increase in NHS spending with little gain, the fact is that for decades spending on the NHS as a percentage of GDP has been woefully small comapred to every other 1st world country - including america.

    Just like with the tube lines, you can't throw money into the system and expect instant results. The infrastructure improvements, reshaping of entire areas, buying in and training up on new equipment - all takes a long time.

    Hell, when you look how many CT scanners we have per head of population compared to france or america. You can't just buy extra scanners. You need extra radiologists. Radiographers. New buildings/areas to put the scanners. Generators and IT infrastructure to deal with the scanners.

    Etc etc
    Fair enough.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kettensägenmassaker)
    1. You're substituting your opinion on justice for fact. There is no "clear" answer. It's not like there's a big blinking handbook that says "medical systems for democracies" with a big "READ THIS, US!" sign on it that Americans were just too illiterate to understand. If nobody disagreed with you, then the American system would already have been overturned.

    2. The life expectancy in America is low for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which being that we're all so damn fat (don't even get me started on rampant obesity, it's one of my pet peeves). Low life expectancy can't be attributed to a single attribute, and it is naive of you to even make that assertion.

    3. Quality of life is subjective.
    The life expectancy is low for all sorts of reasons, you're correct. Rampant obesity is definitely one of them. However, there are probably a great number of people who are both rampantly obese and without insurance. Without a doctor's intervention they may have a mistaken idea of what is or isn't good for them, or just don't realize that their BMI takes years off their lives.

    For your first point, there was a sign saying READ THIS USA. It's been our world standing in healthcare for the past however many years where we've scored embarrassingly low on the WHO's list. What kept our country from going socialized 15 years ago was an uncalled for number of fear-mongerers on the republican side who compared socialized medicine to communism, and also cut down the flag-bearer for her ideas merely because she was a woman. I almost shudder in embarrassment for the right when I watch videos of how Hillary was treated at Capitol Hill and the effect that it had on the nation's view of health-care. After all, how could an idea presented by a woman be the right idea for the country? She's only a female who according to the republican congress had no reason to be on capitol hill.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I suffer from lupus and went on a message board where a lot of americans go and i was horrified hearing stories about how people cant afford the anti-malarials that i get on prescription, and how they have to travel all over the place to get a decent diagnosis, both of which make the illness much worse. Makes me very grateful that I have a GP who can refer me to an appropriate rheumatologist who can monitor me over 2 years to see how i change, and prescribe me medicines.

    So based on that alone I think the NHS is superb. I know it has its flaws, but at the same time its treated many of my family and friends who have had serious illnesses, and they haven't had to have their situation worsened by money worries.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    Actually ours is highly efficient given the limited resources it runs on. Despite the tory (and even labour) protests about the massive increase in NHS spending with little gain, the fact is that for decades spending on the NHS as a percentage of GDP has been woefully small comapred to every other 1st world country - including america.

    Just like with the tube lines, you can't throw money into the system and expect instant results. The infrastructure improvements, reshaping of entire areas, buying in and training up on new equipment - all takes a long time.

    Hell, when you look how many CT scanners we have per head of population compared to france or america. You can't just buy extra scanners. You need extra radiologists. Radiographers. New buildings/areas to put the scanners. Generators and IT infrastructure to deal with the scanners.

    Etc etc
    Agreed - I'm glad I wasn't the one who dragged up a post from the first page to make that reply, though.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: December 11, 2008

University open days

  • University of the West of England, Bristol
    Undergraduate Open Afternoon - Frenchay Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Jan '19
  • University of East London
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Wed, 23 Jan '19
  • University of Gloucestershire
    School of Education Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 23 Jan '19
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.