Yes... that bastion of "vile Socialism", where people don't have to worry about dying or going bankrupt because they or someone in their family gets sick.
And yeah... i know there are problems... the funding is an issue...
But at least they've made a point of acknowledging that health care is a right and not a privilege for those with money.
Damned Socialists!
We could learn a lot from them.
London's NHS ... did it not pay tribute the rest of the country's NHS ? .....
AntwortenLöschenDanny Boyle paid tribute to the NHS during the Olympics opening ceremony because universal healthcare is one of the core values of British society.
The health service was featured as one of Britain's proudest achievements
during the £27 million spectacular.
Boyle said the NHS was an "amazing thing to celebrate" and dedicated a
whole section of his show to the health service
Boyle said: "One of the reasons we put the NHS in the show is that
everyone is aware of how important the NHS is to everybody in this country.
We believe, as a nation, in universal healthcare. It doesn't matter how
poor you are, how rich you are, you will get treated.
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/director_s_tribute_to_amazing_nhs
10/10 to Cameron for his response to Mitt Romney, too.
AntwortenLöschen"...We are holding this event in one the busiest cities in the world. Easy to host an Olympic games in the middle of nowhere."
Not an exact quote. Romney organised the winter Olympics in Utah around 2003, I believe. Was critical of our Olympic efforts here, rudely so.
I might watch the beach volleyball, and some cyclists are gonna go past my house later... roads around here are closed off for it, has hit local businesses, panic-buying etc. Other than that, shall try and ignore the Olympics.
There has always been an NHS in my life. Maybe I take it for granted that if I get hurt I can go walk into A&E and get stitched up. Last time I woke up in hospital was a zero-memory vodka binge... not at all amusing. I think it's one of the best things about living here, but to be fair, as long as it's funded by taxpayers, hospitals should have bouncers on the door and the right to refuse treatment to yobs, drunks, idiots... even lung cancer is indefensible if you've smoked for years. I smoke and drink, but I don't cause a scene or attack hospital staff. If I go to hospital due to alcohol, I will be unconscious, guaranteed. Not good, but better than 'shouty'.
People whose ills are self-inflicted, basically, are a drain on the whole concept. A system where you lose the right to free healthcare, like a prisoner loses civil rights... of that I would approve.
Hope Steve drops in here... he'll have an opinion :)
I guess this is the major difference between Europe and USA. Many of our countries have a compulsory system of social insurance for health, pension, unemployment and need for care, more or less. It is generally accepted as a social achievement and does not at all reduce our freedom, quite the opposite, it reduces our worries, especially in hard times.
AntwortenLöschenI absolutely disagree. That 'self-inflicted" concept is a slippery slope. Almost anything could be thrown into that definition. That is the sort of situation when there is a valid objection about loss of freedom.
AntwortenLöschenThere's nothing wrong with advocating healthier lifestyles, and maybe even adding incentives, but you should never, ever threaten to deny care to one person that other citizens receive
Exactly...
AntwortenLöschenI can imagine a day when because a person was seen frequenting a McDonald's he's denied coverage if he has a heart attack... or worse yet, if one eats meat at all.
NO ONE'S health care should be decided in such an arbitrary and judgmental fashion.
Again... either we take care of all of us or we take care of none... including the rich. We can dispense with doctors and hospitals altogether.
Sounds extreme, doesn't it?
It's only a tick away from what the Cons and Randians and corporatists believe now.
There has been a discussion in Germany a while ago, whether the mutually supportive community should cover the risks of dangerous sports (Sky diving, freestyle climbing and such) or not. The debate soon widened to dangerous behavior, smoking, and so on, as you said, captain, a slippery slope. After checking the statistics they found finally, that most sports-accidents happen at football/soccer games. End of the debate.
AntwortenLöschenJen said "London's NHS"
AntwortenLöschenPedantic correction: it's Britain's NHS.
EDIT: I see Jan got there before me!
Yes, Jez, and i meant to acknowledge that i was aware the NHS is nation wide.
AntwortenLöschenI simply mentioned London because it's the location of the games.
Didn't mean to mislead or offend.
I seem to get into trouble when it comes to .....that area over there ;-P
It's Great Britain, the United Kingdom, England... where one ends and others begin throws me.
Colour me confused!
It is a bit confusing to be fair.
AntwortenLöschenEngland is England.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Wales (though it is also referred to as The United Kingdom and Northern Ireland).
Great Britain is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The British Isles is England, Scotland, Wales and all of Ireland.
Depending on who you ask. Say that in the wrong city and you're liable to get your head kicked in lol
AntwortenLöschenAnd then there's the British Empire...or do they still use that term? There's the Falkland Islands, and Canada still recognizes the Queen, I believe. I'm not sure about Australia.
AntwortenLöschenOz still got Elizabeth's head on their coins, but I'm not sure they like us very much...
AntwortenLöschenThe word Commonwealh tends to be used nowadays.
AntwortenLöschen