This discussion is closed.
Blamps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#1
Given the controversy of the top up fees bill as well as the state of the NHS, I thought I would bring up the whole issue of the welfare state. Are any governments at fault for the NHS, given the increasing age of the general population? Should University education be open for all or should there be a mix of well-recognised vocational courses linked to industry as well as a compact, quality academic tertiary education sector? Do the relative benefits of creating greater social cohension by the dole outweigh the economic losses in terms of what else these funds may have gone towards? Would you agree that during a state of economic recession, the tendency of the government to be forced to increase benefit expenditure can actually be beneficial as the economy is reflated? Should the public sector slants towards increasing privatisation? These are not necessarily views held by me so I thought I would just raise some issues.
0
Juwel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 15 years ago
#2
Legalise euthanasia, then you won't be giving healthcare to people who aren't exactly grateful for it.
0
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 15 years ago
#3
(Original post by ZJuwelH)
Legalise euthanasia, then you won't be giving healthcare to people who aren't exactly grateful for it.

Slippery slope arguments...


Anyway, while I would say that the government have mismanaged the NHS in some ways, the cannot be blamed totally. The sheer range of treatments available now mean it can never be a fully comprehensive service. We could double spending, and double it again and again, and still all that money could be spent...easily.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 15 years ago
#4
Yeah, am grateful for the NHS, would be scared to live in a country without one like the US
0
Blamps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#5
Yet the American health system receives more funding from the state in relative terms...discuss
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 15 years ago
#6
(Original post by Blamps)
Yet the American health system receives more funding from the state in relative terms...discuss
In relative terms? You mean, per person? I would be surprised. Where is that statistic from?
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 15 years ago
#7
(Original post by hitchhiker_13)
Slippery slope arguments...


Anyway, while I would say that the government have mismanaged the NHS in some ways, the cannot be blamed totally. The sheer range of treatments available now mean it can never be a fully comprehensive service. We could double spending, and double it again and again, and still all that money could be spent...easily.
The # 1 reason that the NHS is failing is because anything that is "free" soon runs out, as you would know if you ever tried to buy something for nothing.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 15 years ago
#8
(Original post by Howard)
The # 1 reason that the NHS is failing is because anything that is "free" soon runs out, as you would know if you ever tried to buy something for nothing.
Yes, I go for a kidney transplant EVERYDAY because it's freeeeeeee!
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 15 years ago
#9
(Original post by fishpaste)
Yeah, am grateful for the NHS, would be scared to live in a country without one like the US
Well, that depends if you carry health insurance or not.

With insurance I can expect to live 5 years longer if I get treated for lung cancer in the US than in the UK. That's if I die. But, in addittion the chances of living are greater.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 15 years ago
#10
(Original post by fishpaste)
Yes, I go for a kidney transplant EVERYDAY because it's freeeeeeee!
Don't be ridiculous.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 15 years ago
#11
(Original post by Blamps)
Yet the American health system receives more funding from the state in relative terms...discuss
Nothing to discuss because it's not true.
0
Blamps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#12
(Original post by fishpaste)
In relative terms? You mean, per person? I would be surprised. Where is that statistic from?
I think it is quite well known...I believe it is the same situation even for University education
0
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report 15 years ago
#13
(Original post by Howard)
Well, that depends if you carry health insurance or not.

With insurance I can expect to live 5 years longer if I get treated for lung cancer in the US than in the UK. That's if I die. But, in addittion the chances of living are greater.

Something like 40% of people don't though.
0
Blamps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#14
(Original post by Howard)
Nothing to discuss because it's not true.
How do you know?
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 15 years ago
#15
(Original post by Blamps)
I think it is quite well known...I believe it is the same situation even for University education
Well, I must be living in the only part of the US where it isn't well known then. How extraordinary.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 15 years ago
#16
(Original post by hitchhiker_13)
Something like 40% of people don't though.
42% and that's tragic.
0
Blamps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#17
(Original post by Blamps)
How do you know?
Health Care Spending Rose 8.7 Percent in 2001
U.S. health care spending escalated to $1.4 trillion in 2001, an 8.7 percent increase over the 2000 cost.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported the figures Jan. 8 in its annual expenditure report. CMS also reported that health care spending averaged $5,035 per person in 2001, compared with $4,672 in 2000.

"While still the greatest in the world, our health care system is stretched and stressed to the point of nearly breaking," HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson said. Causes for the spending hike included an 8.3 percent rise in hospital spending, a 15.7 percent rise in prescription drug spending and an 8.6 percent rise in spending for physician services.

Public spending, including Medicare and Medicaid payments, accounted for 45 percent of national health expenditures. Spending for Medicaid reached $224.3 billion in 2001, an increase of 10.8 percent, the fastest growth rate since 1993. "If there ever was an argument for Medicare and Medicaid reform, this report is it," said CMS Administrator Tom Scully
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 15 years ago
#18
(Original post by Howard)
Well, that depends if you carry health insurance or not.

With insurance I can expect to live 5 years longer if I get treated for lung cancer in the US than in the UK. That's if I die. But, in addittion the chances of living are greater.
But if you're one of the millions without insurance. You're rather screwed. You're also screwed if you have a long term illness, because insurance companies can refuse to cover you after you've had a condition for a said time. I think that's probably a can and not a do though, I guess.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 15 years ago
#19
(Original post by Blamps)
How do you know?
Because I live in America.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 15 years ago
#20
(Original post by Howard)
Don't be ridiculous.
But seriously, nobody gets healthcare for the fun of it. You either have cancer or you don't.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.3%
No (214)
76.7%

Watched Threads

View All