Donald Trump

[LondonMix]

How is the ranking decided (what major factors hold the most weight)? I find it interesting that France is number 1. I have a lot of French colleagues and they think the NHS is terrible. All of them over the years (an this adds up to about a dozen people) have gone back to Paris to give birth. I always suspected this was just part of the French's general jingoism but perhaps there was some truth to it.

[dbboy]

That's why so many tourists come here to use OUR NHS system.

[LondonMix]

They don't just come to England. Every country that makes it free at point of use deals with this. Spain has horrible issues with foreigners coming to use their health services as well and it became a huge political issue during austerity.

[miga]

There was a whole previous thread on this. From what I'd read at the time, all these different league tables had NHS roughly comparable in service levels to other Western European countries with universal healthcare. The fact that it's "free" doesn't make it unique either.

[Blah Blah]

It's not exactly free though. We all pay into it. When making European comparisons, we are not always comparing like for like. Many European countries have aspects to their health services that run like private models. In France for example, you will pay for a GP appointment and then claim the money back if you are eligible to do so. The only areas that we manage like that are prescriptions and dentistry.

The NHS though still remains excellent value for what we spend.

And what dismays me about the pressure for privatisation is that government look to America, when really they should be looking to Europe, where there are plenty of good examples of where changes could be made that don't in reality privatise huge areas of healthcare.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And what dismays me about the pressure for privatisation is that government look to America,

> when really they should be looking to Europe, where there are plenty of good examples of where

> changes could be made that don't in reality privatise huge areas of healthcare.

What makes you think they are looking to America? Or are you equating 'privatised' with the US and then projecting? Germany and Austria are two systems that have a significant private contribution and work very well.

[LondonMix]

The Swiss system is also a private model in which everyone has compulsory insurance. It is still individual policies that can be supplemented.

Of the fully publicly funded systems, I'm not sure which ones are the best-- ie who gets the most quality of life / extended life for dollar spend. Some analysis by York University to complement NICE cost benefit analysis showed that every circa 20k of expenditure equals one QUALY currently in the NHS.

I'm not sure how other health systems compare.

[LondonMix]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_health_consumer_index

This is an interesting list. Like all lists it can't be perfect but at least it breaks down the components on which the country's are being scored. The UK ranks 14 out of 37 European countries. It mostly loses points for waiting times and to a lesser extent for health outcomes.

Waiting times for non life threatening illnesses in the UK can be quite astonishing. My husband needed knee treatment and the NHS sent him a letter several months after being on the waiting list that stated if they didn't hear from him within two weeks they'd remove him from the waiting list. We were luck we got it in time as we'd been on holiday when it initially arrived. Its one of the ways the NHS tries to reduce its lists. Eventually, we just used my private insurance and paid the deductible.

[miga]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not exactly free though. We all pay into it.

Hence the quotes.

[Blah Blah]

Government ministers have consulted with American healthcare providers Loz. They published a report via one of their think tanks. I will try and find it.

What I would say is that there is not enough investment in preventative care. Some areas have improved on that front, like cancer, but other areas like mental health and obesity are extremely under resourced. If we want to reduce NHS cost, we could start with the diet of the nation. The long term savings to the NHS would be significant on that front alone.

[LondonMix]

How can the NHS influence people's diets with more funding. I'm not sure there are a lot of people who are obese because they don't know what is healthy and what is not. Taxing really unhealthy food and subsidizing healthy choices might be the only thing that makes a serious impact on the choices people make.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Government ministers have consulted with American healthcare providers Loz. They published a report

> via one of their think tanks. I will try and find it.

I'm sure they have, but that doesn't mean we are heading towards a US-style system. The NHS Supply Chain has been run by the German logistics company DHL and NHS Shared Business Services, handling a wide range of back office functions (SBS), is 50% owned by French IT company Sopra Steria. Virgin (UK owner) has show a lot of interest in health provision.

[IlonaM]

WATCH: Rachel Maddow May Have Just Cost Trump The Election With This BRILLIANT Report (VIDEO) | If You Only News

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/watch-rachel-maddow-may-have-just-cost-trump-the-election-with-this-brilliant-report-video/

[WorkingMummy]

[Earl Aelfheah]

So looks like Hilary has clinched the Democratic nomination. I really hope the party can now unify behind its candidate and defeat Trump. Scary times.

[Louisa]

Good on Bernie Sanders for not conceding yet. He is the authentic Democratic candidate this electoral season. A principled man.

Louisa.

[Loz]

What did Donald Trump get for his birthday?

Bernie Sanders.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The Democrats need to unify (regardless of whether one feels Hiliary was the right choice or not) and turn their focus to stopping Trump.

[LondonMix]

Very scary times.

Also, I can't believe that despite winning the popular vote, the assigned delegates (those you get from winning a state) and the total delegates (including Super Delegates), Sander won't concede much less congratulate her as is standard practice.

There is something very ugly about it and I strongly suspect would never happen to a male candidate.

[LondonMix]

Louisa, he has lost the race by every metric. Not conceding is petty, disrespectful, pointless and increases the chance of a Trump victory.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Good on Bernie Sanders for not conceding yet. He

> is the authentic Democratic candidate this

> electoral season. A principled man.

>

> Louisa.

[civilservant]

I was interested to hear that liberally inclined voters in the US view the Clintons much in the same way that liberally inclined voters in the UK view the Blairs - suggesting that voting for Hillary is analogous to voting for Cherie!

really difficult for anyone who would otherwise welcome a woman running for President

[Jeremy]

I was under the impression that Bill Clinton is remembered much more fondly over there than Tony Blair is over here...

[Louisa]

LM in any normal circumstances I would say conceding defeat would be the appropriate thing to do, but considering how unpopular Hilary is both inside the Democrat Party and out in the wider US electorate, it is the right thing to do. It's alarming that some working class Democrats are so anti-establishment that they would be prepared to vote Trump rather than Hilary. She's a polarising figure, as much, if not more so than Trump.

Louisa.

[????]

I think the difference is Clinton swerved Iraq by no longer being President by 9/11 which is the main hatred for Tone,

In terms of money grabbing there's not much difference, in fact the Clinton brands probably worse with shady property deals etc

[civilservant]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was under the impression that Bill Clinton is

> remembered much more fondly over there than Tony

> Blair is over here...

my impression too - but that's not saying a lot, they seem to have a better tolerance for sleaze over there

I see that a poll of fave un-dead ex presidents over there had Bill neck and neck with Bush Senior