Did you see that the BBC’s specially commissioned poll to mark 60 years of the NHS has come up with the …ahem…. “surprising” revelation that the majority of people here in the UK want to see more State interference and greater State spending in the health service? You have to admire the BBC’s brassneck – using this anniversary to push for more Statism and enhanced taxation all to be poured down the gaping maw of the Stalinist NHS. Not much of a mention of the thousands that DIE each year in this vast filthy monolith. Like the BBC, the NHS is politically driven, overstaffed with bureaucrats removed from reality, and in need of demolition.
60 YEARS, MORE SPENDING- MORE NANNYISM.
Bookmark the permalink.
place your bets now.
privatisation of the NHS even mentioned on Newsnight
100 to 1?
tens of thousands being killed by the NHS because of filthy wards?
one in three of the UK population, according to a recent poll, refusing to even contemplate being treated by the NHS because of fears of MRSA..?
The goal of the SOCIALIST is to have EVERYONE on NationalHealth etc.
The more DEAD BEATS, the more Socialism.
The more Government dependant the more Socialism.
The more Government employees the more socialism.
The more BBC government FUNDED liberal types, the more socialism.
The more unfettered immigration, (especially immigration from Muslim countries) the more socialism.
You’ve reached the tipping point in Britain.
We’re nearing it here in the U.S. as well.
Obama and liberals want the government to run everything.
THEN THEY CONTROL YOU.
i was wrong.. they’ve touched on privatisation.
only to be argued against by the conservative party guy.
jeez.
yawn.. getting bored of it now – its just a bunch of socialists all argueing on how socialistic the NHS should be and whether the NHS should be even more or less socialistic.
yawn… i’ve switched over.
The NHS is a basket case. Just like the BBC it’s full of losers who have no idea of what providing a decent service is all about.
The BBC keep promoting this idea that the NHS is the envy of the world, just like the BBC thinks that ‘it’ is also the envy of the world as a state broadcaster.
Don’t forget, when the MRSA doesn’t get you the mad doctors will.
More nonsense from the jock bint on Newsnight. Yet again the Scots make the ‘assumption’ that ALL North Sea oil revenues would belong to Scotland even though a significant proportion of oil and gas lies in English waters.
How come no one from the BBC ever picks them up on this ‘lie?’
Surely one of the reasons the BBC wouldn’t dare attack the NHS is because it might lead to uncomfortable probing about it’s own somewhat extravagant and turgid set-up. Both the NHS and the BBC need reforming, with enforced funding cuts and a brutal re-evaluation of exactly what the taxpayer is getting for his money. According to today’s Times the NHS is up there with the Chinese army and Indian Railways as the world’s largest employer. However over half of the employees are simply “support staff”, with about a sixth being qualified medics! How can this be a sign of efficient and competent health service? I’d be interested to see some of the Beeb’s figures too, but that’s probably unavailable…
I disagree with you on this.
Labour have been privatising the NHS, these birthday programmes are likely to try to introduce this Nuliar idea to the public, who are very pro their NHS, to convince us it is the only way to go.
The whole debate for the twenty minutes i saw focused on issues of private involvement.
Hang on. Nu Labour have been privatising the NHS in ENGLAND.
LISTEN TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND SO IS THE BBC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Indeed. Watching the 6 clock news earlier and there wasn’t even a single mention of anyone saying too much of our money was going on the NHS. The whole argument was skewed in terms of ‘what more should the NHS do’. Disgraceful bias IMO
A few years ago here in the US I had to have some serious surgery for a life threatening condition and I wasn’t insured.
Despite the fact that it was going to cost me over $10,000, I decided to have it done in America without a second thought. The hospitals here are second to none compared to the NHS. They are bright, clean, technologically superior and above all else, you don’t have to wait for your surgery.
I had family back home inquire as to possible waiting times if I came home and had it done on the NHS and they were told 12 weeks plus, for a procedure that my doctors here told me had to be done right away if I wanted to be 100% sure of living.
And still, I had friends back home who said “you must be mad, mate. Come back and have it done on the good old NHS”.
Sure, it was expensive, but in the end I managed to get them down to less than $5000 after it emerged I would be paying in full, upfront, in cash. The surgeon, who was the nicest guy imaginable and one of the best in his field in the world, slashed the fee he’d usually charge if it were through my insurance.
The reason why health care is so expensive over here is because there are so many regulations and mandates imposed on the industry that the free market cannot do for it what it has done for the price and accessibility of all other goods and services, like air travel and computers. The insurance industry is a mess and they’re just not allowed to offer the consumer exactly what they want (and leave out the things they don’t want), which means people pay for bloated cover that they don’t really need.
The left here says “socialization is the answer”, despite all you tell them about socialized medicine anywhere else. The fact that nobody in America goes abroad to seek treatment they can’t get here doesn’t sway them. The fact that Canada has companies which specialize in bringing Canadians to America to save their lives after their own government denies them live saving treatment, doesn’t sway them. The fact that Brits die on waiting lists when there was no need for them to die in this day and age doesn’t bother them. Nor does the fact that the vast bulk of medical invention and advancement comes out of the US. All that matters to them is the word “socialized”.
I agree with Jason, and all the other accounts of how badly the NHS performs compared to elsewhere. It is a monolith. It is incredibly badly run. It should be privatised or broken up.
However, I’m quite willing to believe the BBC’s figures. The general population do, in general, have a great affection for the “free” NHS, and a great distrust over privatisation. All the political parties know that to pledge to break up or privatise the NHS is electoral suicide.
Personally I think the general population is off its collective rocker on this one, but to suggest that such sentiments don’t exist – or even that they are only the preserve of the loony left – is just plain wrong.
gus:
The goal of the SOCIALIST is to have EVERYONE on NationalHealth etc.
Well almost. Just as thay have kept a nucleus of good schools that they can send their children to, so they will keep some private hospitals but make sure that they are so expensive that only those funded by the taxpayers will be able to get in.
Would the likes of speaker Martin or the top BBC people want to be stuck in cdiff ward with the common people.
Excellent.
Eighty-two per cent of the British population are proud of the NHS.
Every single poster on B-BBC rails against it.
Biased BBC: Speaking for the British public.
Not.
.
A fully state funded Health system is just madness, I live in France and as I work and pay into the system I have an element of cover that is paid by the state and the rest is paid by insurance, which is either paid by me of by a company. At the moment I use my wifes company policy as she works for a good company which gives quite good cover. Yes I do pay some of the costs, but so what. When I have had x-rays or scans it was next day, seeing a specialist took a day or two.
If anyone thinks that the NHS is the envy of the world, they need their head examined. The UK should look at the state and insurance funded model such as France and the rest of Europe.
Martin: “More nonsense from the jock bint on Newsnight. Yet again the Scots make the ‘assumption’ that ALL North Sea oil revenues would belong to Scotland even though a significant proportion of oil and gas lies in English waters.”
The Scottish view is that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) places 98% the oil reserves in Scottish waters. Research performed at Aberdeen University also supports this (no surprises there!).
Lawyers could argue over this for decades. Scotland is naive, however, if it thinks that it can ring-fence the oil revenues and walk away with them on independence. Oil would be one of a huge range of matters which would have to be negotiated.
It reminds me of a 20 year-old leaving his parents’ home for the first time and discovering, to his horror, that he has become responsible for a wide range of household expenses that he was previously unaware of.
Early morning (Monday) BBC news stated one third of people think the NHS is great (or similar words). The bias of course is BBC shoud have said 2 thirds of people think the NHS is terrible.
America spends around twice the proportion of GDP on healthcare than we do, so you would expect it to be good. Couldn’t have something to do with how little our State has tried to get away with spending for years could it? A few years back the DH used the wheeze of awarding a 2% annual payrise, and funding it through “efficiency savings” of, wait for it, yes, 2%.ie they didn’t fund it at all. Instead everybody in the hospital had their budgets cut by 2% to find the money to pay the increase.That’s how this goverment has run things.
Forget the “50% bureaucrats” bollox, that is just scapegoating by misusing workforce classifications. You think consultants type their own letters? Medical secretaries do. That doctors run the computer network? IT staff do that. And engineers keep the boilers running, and and and.Its the support staff that enable the doctors to spend most all of their time doing the medicine bit.
So basically the NHS needs to sack all the support staff and make the doctors do everything. Thats a sure way to run a hospital. Oh and bring back matron. And Dr Tinkle the Urologist. Carry On!
LFJ: Excellent.Eighty-two per cent of the British population are proud of the NHS
Sure, and 30% of people believe in alien abductions with anal probing…
Heck some loons even believe the utterly discredited corrupt ideology socialism works, even though we have a century of proof to the contrary.
So what exactly is your point? Because people “believe” something, it’s true?
And that others who don’t “believe” it, should shut the eff up? That your point?
LFJ — the pointless poster.
And they are now pushing the nightmare scenario of counselling and some foolish pseudoscience scam called “cognitive behavior therapy” for the “6 million” people suffering from “stress and depression”. A ludicrous prospect for ordinary taxpayers reported by the state broadcaster uncritically as something that will “pay for itself” when this army of the ill, inadequate and malingering are mobilised and start writing their own hip-hop operas about coal production.
I’m perfectly happy to believe that a large proportion of the British are happy with the NHS. And not entirely without reason either, I’ve had a couple of thoroughly pleasant experiences interspersed with some bad ones. As a pretty healthy individual I suspect that paying taxes for the NHS has proved more cost effective than theoretically not paying taxes and forking out for BUPA instead.
As far as the Beeb reporting goes what strikes me isn’t so much that they whitewash the bad points but that the basic system is completely taken for granted. I’m sure a few years back there was a ‘conversation’ this with government ministers steaming around europe to see how the compulsary insurance systems work, which was enthusiastically covered by the Beeb. This now seems to have completely disappeared?
The Beeb promoted the lie that the NHS was purely the invention of the Labour Party. Actually it was invented by Liberal William Beveridge and then Winston Churchill introduced a Bill in 1943 during the wartime coalition government. The Bill stalled due to the war and partly because Labour actually opposed it (Anuerin Bevan was a particularly strong opponent). However, in 1945 Attlee re-introduced it as a Labour Party idea. The Tory party never opposed the NHS. Businesses were in favour of it at that time since before the NHS healthcare was primarily provided by employers paid for out of their profits. After the NHS the employees effectively paid for their own health-care out of taxation. Of course good employers these days provide private health care to all their employees – they need their valued employees back at work within a few weeks after an illness, not 2 years.
I would agree with everyone here that the insurance based schemes used in France and Germany work far better than the NHS. I am totally unimpressed by the statistics used by the Beeb. People think the NHS is great – but compared to what? Medieval standards of health-care perhaps? My first car was a lot better than a pedal-bike, but that British made car didn’t compare too well with the German car I drive today. It is clear that the government passed the duty of defining the future NHS to exactly the person that would give them the outcome they wanted. Why was one surgeon given the job? The whole problem is that the NHS doesn’t do what patients want. That means sick people. There is no point in talking to people that are too well to ever use the NHS, or people that are inflicting the bad healthcare on patients. I have experienced the NHS up-close and that’s why I have top level private health-care! The Beeb are welcome to talk to me about my NHS experiences.
In passing I would mention that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy does actually work very well and I am supportive of it being available on the NHS since it helps people get back to work and not sit around on disability benefit. It is not pseudo-science – it is common-sense applied to people that seem to lack common-sense.
Jason: IMO that’s a good summary of a massive subject. Fix the insurance/regulatory superstructure and restore market forces, and
costs drop. Consumers, for that is all patients are, always vote with their feet in a free marketplace. And that includes the indigent (big
topic, not here).
The very idea is anathema to the ruling elites in Britain, and beyond the reach of the demoralized dependent classes, so it’ll never happen anywhere in the UK.
You will also never see a balanced BBC documentary about US medical care: the mindset is and always will be Michael Moore. The goal, it seems, is the familiar one — Thank God I’m Not In America.
Meanwhile, in the real world, some northern hospitals in the UK are now little better than slaughterhouses.
Iain: I don’t buy that. Many of the gas fields are right off the coast of England.
Also you have to look at where the oil is located and drawn from.
I strongly doubt 98% of it is Scottish.
They would own a majority but nothing like 98%
“They would own a majority but nothing like 98%”
They would own 10%. Scotland signed up to the Union of its own free will and volition. Therefore it would have to negotiate its departure from the Union. It is highly unlikely that Scotland would be able to negotiate a share of the oil discovered and developed by English companies that was greater than its relative share of the UK population. Lets face it, the Scots have no leverage, other than their (possible) own vote for self-determination. The English would be under no obligation to grant them independence, and the Scots would be in no position to force the issue. Even if the UN were to take the unlikely step of moving in to force a settlement in favour of the Scots, it must be remembered that the Shetland Islands and the Orkney Islands are not Scottish per se. These islands would very likely use their territorial waters as a bargaining chip between England and Scotland to get the best possible deal for themselves.
“I would agree with everyone here that the insurance based schemes used in France and Germany work far better than the NHS.”
And I would add that the more consumer-based system of Switzerland works better than both of them.
Hillhunt | 01.07.08 – 7:53 am |
Excellent.
Eighty-two per cent of the British population are proud of the NHS.
Every single poster on B-BBC rails against it.
Biased BBC: Speaking for the British public.
Not.
No, you’re quite right. Biased BBC commenters have not been brainwashed like most of the public, are not lost to the class war, like most of the public, and are not ignorant, incapable of critical judgment, doing basic arithmetic. Nor are we apathetic or other-directed, as are a majority of the public.
The idea that Biased BBC commenters must represent the majority of the British Public in order to be correct is a straw man argument. It is a false premise, on which so many of your taunts…er….arguments are based.
As Heron, Jason, and Jack Bauer have already said, they are well aware (or accept the BBC’s contention) that most people don’t know any better, or haven’t thought seriously enough to break through the BBC and government propaganda. Yet they still claim the right to an opinion, and can still be correct.
Yes, that’s right, Hillhunt. The commenters here can be correct even if they don’t represent some sort of quorum of public opinion.
Do you care to address the issue of whether or not the BBC is biased towards socialized healthcare, regardless of the outcome? Would you like to debate any points raised that the BBC reports are biased in favor of maintaining the socialist nature of the NHS?
But that’s not what you’re really here for, is it?
In addition to backing the entirety of what David Preiser has just posted, may I add that my immediate reaction to the BBC’s poll claims was the Rice-Davis response: Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?
Call me cynical, but I take all polls with a pinch of salt. Far too often, as in this case, the ‘results’ are exactly what you would have predicted from the people commissioning them.
Ryan excellent points but I remain unconvinced about CBT, and especially the notion that it is some part of “medicine”. The point I was really making is that the in its GDR Rundfunk Broadcast this morning, and other recent output, the BBC is pushing the line that there exists a vast (scandalously) untreated pool of new “patients” who should have resources diverted to them. Can you imagine the lawsuits from those denied the opportunity to be particle physicists by the states failure to recognise their victimhood? I really dont think the inculcation of “common sense” for the deficient is a sensible way to spend a state health budget.
“Every single poster on B-BBC rails against it.” Hillhunt (referring to the NHS).
That is a lie.
Hillhunt you are a liar.
Every Hillhunt (in all his aliases) rails against B-BBC
That at least is true.
When we have the BBC the Guardian and the labour party telling us that the NHS is the ‘envy of the world’ and with very few of us thankfuly having to use more than a@e services abroad (and most of that probably people too drunk to do a fair comparison)
How else were most people going to response.
Envy of the world isn’t that how the beeb would describe itself to us? must be true then.
Unlike the majority of the commenters on this thread, whose motto seems to be, “Fuck off, I’m rich!”, I’m old, chronically ill, and dependent on the NHS for treatment. If the NHS is “demolished”, where would they suggest I go for treatment — other than to “fuck off”?
David P:
Biased BBC commenters have not been brainwashed like most of the public… not lost to the class war… not ignorant, incapable of critical judgment, doing basic arithmetic… Nor are we apathetic or other-directed, as are a majority of the public.
Y-e-e-e-s. You don’t trust the public. OK.
The idea that Biased BBC commenters must represent the majority of the British Public in order to be correct is a straw man argument.
Indeed. I didn’t say you must. I said you didn’t. Which you confirm…
As Heron, Jason, and Jack Bauer have already said, they are well aware … that most people don’t know any better, or haven’t thought seriously enough…
You really don’t rate the public, do you?
The commenters here can be correct even if they don’t represent some sort of quorum of public opinion.
I think we can agree on that.
Do you care to address the issue of whether or not the BBC is biased towards socialized healthcare, regardless of the outcome? Would you like to debate any points raised that the BBC reports are biased in favor of maintaining the socialist nature of the NHS?
Happy to. They’re not biased. And David Vance’s summary of the BBC’s anniversary coverage continues his trend of high-decibel distortion which bears no relation to the programmes he describes. He introduces no evidence to back up his shrill assertions. He simply rants at the BBC. And most commenters here follow that line in an increasingly narrow spiral of paranoid libertarianism.
Which was, I think, my original point.
.
LFJ | 01.07.08 – 9:36 pm |
Indeed. I didn’t say you must. I said you didn’t. Which you confirm…
So your point was? None.
Happy to. They’re not biased. And David Vance’s summary of the BBC’s anniversary coverage continues his trend of high-decibel distortion which bears no relation to the programmes he describes. He introduces no evidence to back up his shrill assertions. He simply rants at the BBC. And most commenters here follow that line in an increasingly narrow spiral of paranoid libertarianism.
No evidence offered? I guess you don’t see all of the BBC’s broadcasts on the topic as the evidence he was talking about. Which, you know, he said. So other than pretending Vance was talking about something out of the blue, your attempt to address the issue of bias is to gainsay my statement? You must have gotten Alex’s ticket for the Argument Room.
Which was, I think, my original point.
No, you didn’t have one. Other than to cast aspersions, of course.
Why are you here again?
David P”
So your point was? None.
Yes, er, No.
That you are a very narrow echo chamber of libertarian fantasists. And have little legitimacy as public spokesmen.
No evidence offered? I guess you don’t see all of the BBC’s broadcasts on the topic as the evidence he was talking about.
The basic rule of evidence is that someone making an allegation of bias should prove their point in the first place. To wave your fist at a new bulletin and say See – it’s biased is proof of nothing at all.
.
Teleplasm: I don’t think everyone is necessarily against the concept of the NHS per se, but rather the shambles that it has become. The execution, rather than the idea, is at fault, although I think it is debatable whether the idea could ever fully work.
I would personally advocate a privatisation of the NHS, with a voucher system allocated to each citizen to pay for treatment required. If the patient so desires and can afford it, he is welcome to take his custom wherever he feels he can get the best service.
Before anyone argues that this is unfair because many people would simply have to make do with bog-standard, welcome to the free market. You choose what groceries you buy according to your means, so why not health care? Come to that, why not TV too, eh BBC?
“That you are a very narrow echo chamber of libertarian fantasists. ”
Surveys have shown the majority of Americans consider themselves libertarian. I don’t think such polls have been conducted in the UK but I’d expect a similar result. People don’t like the “nanny state”.
Regarding the NHS: 1 in 5 is “very narrow” considering the wall to wall socialist propaganda? No, not at all. The BBC should be representing those 1 in 5 just as they should represent the 1 in 3 who want to be out of the EU.
nibbler:
People don’t like the “nanny state”.
Apart from the 82% who are proud of the NHS.
And the large majorities who felt it was the Government’s job to improve people’s health…
.
LFJ writes: “Apart from the 82% who are proud of the NHS.
And the large majorities who felt it was the Government’s job to improve people’s health…
.”
Or, so the BBC claims.
Hillhunt | 01.07.08 – 10:17 pm |
That you are a very narrow echo chamber of libertarian fantasists. And have little legitimacy as public spokesmen.
Oooh – “libertarian”! You must have held your nose as you typed that word. You write that as if it is an insult, and detracts form any point made. Not a valid argument at all. And nobody ever claimed that this blog was supposed to be anything like a “public spokesman”. That’s just something you made up. A voice of “some people”, sure. A voice of reason in the dark, yes. (I know that’s how you view yourself here. Life is so ironic.)
Also, labeling this blog as “narrow” just shows your own prejudice and small-mindedness. You surely can’t deny that commenters here have displayed a fairly wide range of opinions on issues. You seem to be displaying a little intellectual fascism when you use such a narrow definition as “libertarian fantasists” just because we don’t fall in lock-step with all your beliefs. Everyone to your political right is to be lumped together as a bunch of nutters, right? No shades of gray? No distinctions at all?
The basic rule of evidence is that someone making an allegation of bias should prove their point in the first place. To wave your fist at a new bulletin and say See – it’s biased is proof of nothing at all.
The point has been made a number of times already on this blog. I agree it would have been much more helpful if David Vance had posted a quote, or linked to a report of some kind, but pretending that each post must appear as if out of thin air, out of the context of this blog, pretending that his post was not in reference to anything in particular, and as if nothing has ever been discussed before is kind of silly at this point.
So, why are you here, exactly? I think I know, but I’d rather hear it from you.
The many versions of hillhunt,
Yes real simple isn’t it?
Personally I’m none too supportive of an organisation that killed my father with mrsa that he never had when he went into the nhs hospital.
Now I ,and all of my family, go private, guess that puts me in the 18%, and makes me a libertarian fantasist…
So if certain elements at the BBC are not slanting coverage in favor of the NHS, how to explain the fact that, at the bottom of this article about failures of the last contract for dental services, the “Send Us Your Comments” bit asks only for positive responses?
NHS dentistry reforms ‘failing’
Have you noticed an improvement in NHS dental care? Was it easy to find an NHS dentist? Have you recently gone private?
Seems a bit contradictory to the article itself. Asking if anyone has recently gone private is not the same thing as asking “Are you unhappy with care,” or “Have you noticed problems with the new system?”.
Most of the time, these questions are in sympathy with the preceding article. Are they deliberately trying to drum up evidence of support for the NHS? Is that what the BBC is supposed to do?
“If the NHS is “demolished”, where would they suggest I go for treatment — other than to “fuck off”?”
False dichotomy. The choice is not between the NHS as it is and absolutely nothing, although obviously the left-wing propaganda has been massively succesful in convincing you that it is, so thank you for your comment.
The choice could be between the NHS and the German style system, which is also “free”. The difference is that in the German system the money paid into the national insurance scheme is yours to spend on the treatment you want, where you want it- you have the choice. Thus the doctors and nurses see you as a valued customer that must be kept happy and well. In the NHS you are merely a whinging leather bag of urine and blood, nothing other than a “problem” best declared “dead on arrival” to swiftly see you exit the building causing least fuss to the staff. That is the side-effect of the socialist approach – equality of doctors and nurses income leads to inequality of effort, which in turn leads to no effort at all. Hence we have a situation where I now have an uncle killed by an NHS hospital by peretonitis diagnosed as indigestion, a friend that has no longer able to have children thanks to an operation that went badly wrong as she suffered e.coli infection contracted whilst in hospital, and my wife who was told “Well, I don’t know what is wrong with you but you have made it this far, so I guess you will still be alive in the morning” – she slept well that night I can tell you. Patients are just problems to doctors. They quickly get used to pain, suffering and death and are only motivated by money. Take away any financial incentive to work hard, and pretty soon they don’t work at all.
I get BUPA cover through my work for my whole family. The service they provide is top notch. The kind of service that BUPA provides should be available to all in a civilised country. The NHS could never reach such levels of care, because it doesn’t even try. Going to the NHS hospital in Swindon is like an episode of MASH – I expect Hawkeye Pierce to pop-up at any moment. You are lucky if you come out alive, believe me.