Westminster Politics 2024-2029

The Boy said:
It's from a study carried out in the US, New Zealand, France, Germany, Netherlands, Australia, UK, Switzerland, Canada, Norway and Sweden by the Commonwealth Fund.
Click to expand...


But it doesn't make sense. Poor people are given assistance.
An old lady living in the countryside with little money, say near where I live, would not only not have to pay, she'd be provided witha taxi/ambulance to take her to and from her GP appointment even if it was miles away.
It's a different world - having lived in the UK for a very long time before.
 
The Boy said:
@NotThatSoph is right though, I think. Hypochondria is an anxiety condition, it's not someone faking for the hell of it or someone using A&E for minor bumps and scratches.

The UK introduced the 111 phone line to try and take pressure off A&E and GPs and it has certainly stopped me making a couple of visits in the past. But using a financial penalty to stop people accessing healthcare seems very wrong and potentially dangerous for the very poorest who due to their circumstances often have the worst health outcomes already.
Click to expand...

Hypochondriacs is a meaningless term in this context. The idea isn't to block people who are mentally ill. The idea is to shift people with minor illnesses towards a more appropriate solution, whether that's using 111, or seeing a pharmacist, or going to the GP instead of emergency department, or whatever. Everyone who has ever worked in the NHS knows the type of people I'm talking about. Not necessarily poor, not necessarily hypochondriac, just with a very low threshold for wanting to talk to a doctor. And there's a load of them. And only a finite amount of doctors.

It's interesting that this thread has had contributions from people who actually work (or have worked) in the NHS and not one of them has objected to the possibility that maybe the NHS shouldn't always be free at point of use. I think that speaks volumes.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
But it doesn't make sense. Poor people are given assistance.
An old lady living in the countryside with little money, say near where I live, would not only not have to pay, she'd be provided witha taxi/ambulance to take her to and from her GP appointment even if it was miles away.
It's a different world - having lived in the UK for a very long time before.
Click to expand...
It may not make sense anecdotally, but the problem of health forgoers in France, especially amongst the unemployed is well documented.
 
The Boy said:
It may not make sense anecdotally, but the problem of health forgoers in France, especially amongst the unemployed is well documented.
Click to expand...

Unemployed would pay nothing. It's an American government survey with loads of assumptions.

Anyway I have to leave you as I have a scanner at the hospital.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Hypochondriacs is a meaningless term in this context. The idea isn't to block people who are mentally ill. The idea is to shift people with minor illnesses towards a more appropriate solution, whether that's using 111, or seeing a pharmacist, or going to the GP instead of emergency department, or whatever. Everyone who has ever worked in the NHS knows the type of people I'm talking about. Not necessarily poor, not necessarily hypochondriac, just with a very low threshold for wanting to talk to a doctor. And there's a load of them. And only a finite amount of doctors.

It's interesting that this thread has had contributions from people who actually work (or have worked) in the NHS and not one of them has objected to the possibility that maybe the NHS shouldn't always be free at point of use. I think that speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
This guy right here - I am an anxious wreck convinced I am about to slip off the mortal coil, it takes a huge amount of strength to not go to the docs each day tbh. I imagine, ironically, this will be the death of me in the end :lol:
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Hypochondriacs is a meaningless term in this context. The idea isn't to block people who are mentally ill. The idea is to shift people with minor illnesses towards a more appropriate solution, whether that's using 111, or seeing a pharmacist, or going to the GP instead of emergency department, or whatever. Everyone who has ever worked in the NHS knows the type of people I'm talking about. Not necessarily poor, not necessarily hypochondriac, just with a very low threshold for wanting to talk to a doctor. And there's a load of them. And only a finite amount of doctors.

It's interesting that this thread has had contributions from people who actually work (or have worked) in the NHS and not one of them has objected to the possibility that maybe the NHS shouldn't always be free at point of use. I think that speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
The figures I've posted previously show that in all countries where you are charged at the point of access, the amount of people foregoing healthcare rises significantly and when you start interrogating those stats, it's normally the poorest people in our societies. If we're OK with that, then yes charging to visit a GP or A&E certainly would take some pressure off the system, but it leads to unequal access to healthcare.

As for the bolded section, this is completely anecdotal, there are plenty of healthcare professionals who believe in the free at the point of access principle and have spoken out against charging. I imagine that in healthcare like every other profession there are a huge range of differing views from different people.
 
Having charges for certain things and making them means tested is the last thing we need right now. While it may not be that bad an idea in practise, can anybody actually see that working in the U.K.? Reform and the Conservative Party would be all over it, stoking more hatred. ‘Look at that refugee coming here and getting free medical care while you have to pay.’ It would be a disaster.
 
The general election thread is locked so have to to post this in here


GSHcDpzXsAEvrTe
 
Dancfc said:
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1810676708539764796

Community notes on Boris, says it all really.

I'd be enjoying this if I trusted the public to not eventually forget and be drawn it again.
Click to expand...


They'll be axing child labour laws, rainy summer days on the beach and the ability to do anything other than leave your government assigned housing estate to go to your government assigned job for no money soon after that.
 
TheGame said:
:lol:



Click to expand...

What's the plural of old men shouting at the clouds? When they realise that as a 5 MP party, they will be ignored for the most part in the house of commons, they'll retreat back to moaning on tv, which the will get a disproportionate amount of time doing for such a small party.
 
DanH said:


She's doubling down.
Click to expand...


She's the most dangerous person in politics. Or would be if the kind of people she tried to appeal to weren't the exact kind who wouldn't ever vote for a non white woman.
 
Dancfc said:
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1810676708539764796

Community notes on Boris, says it all really.

I'd be enjoying this if I trusted the public to not eventually forget and be drawn it again.
Click to expand...

You still get plenty of idiots now who think he did a good job and was unfairly hounded out.

Despite him making every single non rich person in the country's life measurably worse and being the reason people like Truss and Sunak were able to even think about running for PM
 
Casually waiting for certain users to report on junior doctors' strikes.
 
Solius said:
Apparently he's got sexual assault claims against him, some other shit too.

Also saw someone say he's the only person who'd go to a £20 a head buffet and be charged £30.
Click to expand...

Source? Tried googling but couldn't find anything.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Of course it happens. And no, it's not all means tested. In Norway, for instance, it's capped but not means tested (some local areas have means tested policies on top of this, but they're not well-known and typically not used).

I live in one of the richest countries in the world, with extremely cheap healthcare, and I personally know several people who go without needed healthcare because of costs. It's extremely dumb to say that it doesn't happen. What you mean to say is that it does of course happen, but that it's worth it.
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here, one might ask why even one of the richest countries in the world with almost limitless natural resource wealth....has decided to implement a co-pay system (and decided to not change it either)?
 
Murder on Zidanes Floor said:
Click to expand...


I have literally no idea who this guy is or his politics...but I don't see much problem with this?

He's essentially saying he's got his own lived version of life experience (some very pertinent experiences if we're to take what he's saying at face value) and experiences which are often not well represented in the parliament.

He's watched Sunak, Truss and Johnsons' life experience ravage this country over the past 1.5 decades. Not much good it did us.
 
africanspur said:
Playing devil's advocate here, one might ask why even one of the richest countries in the world with almost limitless natural resource wealth....has decided to implement a co-pay system (and decided to not change it either)?
Click to expand...

It raises some funds, and it lowers costs by turning away people who would otherwise consume healthcare.
 
NotThatSoph said:
It raises some funds, and it lowers costs by turning away people who would otherwise consume healthcare.
Click to expand...

But why would such a wealthy country, especially one historically stereotypically painted as one with a left of centre population, choose to build their healthcare system in this way? Sadism?
 
africanspur said:
But why would such a wealthy country, especially one historically stereotypically painted as one with a left of centre population, choose to build their healthcare system in this way? Sadism?
Click to expand...

There's a budget, like for any other country. There's no particular political pressure on the subject, so politicians have no incentive to change anything in either direction.

The cap is at around £300 per year, and a typical co-pay is at around, what, 20? People turned away by that are largely invisible, so no one cares.
 
NotThatSoph said:
There's a budget, like for any other country. There's no particular political pressure on the subject, so politicians have no incentive to change anything in either direction.

The cap is at around £300 per year, and a typical co-pay is at around, what, 20? People turned away by that are largely invisible, so no one cares.
Click to expand...

And Norway, a country with considerably more budgetary flexibility than any other European country, still decided that this would be a sensible approach. Despite having relatively left of centre politics. Almost as though it's actually a reasonable way to run a health service.
 
noodlehair said:
She's the most dangerous person in politics. Or would be if the kind of people she tried to appeal to weren't the exact kind who wouldn't ever vote for a non white woman.
Click to expand...

I'd like to be optimistic and say she's too much of a pantomime villain and too graceless for people to buy into her but my faith in politics isn't what it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.