Park Life

The idea that the NHS just needs more funding is something I no longer subscribe to, but it is also the case that all big organisations are wasteful public or private. IBM was always a classic case study for this. So be kind to ans these questions: Would people working paying higher private insureance premiums get better access to healthcare? Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Do you believe the core and nuts and bolts of the system funding or otherwise should remain public?

That's why I said this is nice. Have you got reading issues? Does your Mutuelle cover that? From the BMA: "Research on charging systems in various countries including the UK generally shows that they affect lower income groups disproportionately, and so reduce equity45. This effect is compounded by the tendency for these groups to have poorer health and consequently a greater need for healthcare. Within this general pattern, the greatest impact would fall upon particularly vulnerable groups such as the elderly, the disabled and mentally ill, and families with young children."

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad. France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service. The WHO ranking is from 11 years ago, healthcare has changed massively since then. It also values the principle of equal access very highly. Your last sentence is just utter shite, i'm sat here with a payslip in front of me which details how much of my salary goes to EON, my 'mutuelle' in France. They are my insurance company here, which the law basically says i have to have. 60% of provision in France is public (i.e the hospitals are state run). Funding comes from insurance. Another doughnut. Just cause a third party handles some of the money doesn't mean it's private healthcare though does it? Are you just saying that some 'private entities' should handle the healthcare financial provision? If so why is that an advantage and how will they make enough money out of it for you to get your Bentley? I want answers!! You know you could have said the healthcare system in France is making the country bankrupt. What sections of the NHS service/financial services/delivery of care would be better of from privatisation? The unemployed are paid for by the state, the employed need an insurer. This site allows you to compare 'competing' companies offering different services and levels of coverage. http://mutuelle.compareo.net/ I'd also say the vaslty over-sized public sector iin France is causing them financial problems with the millions of civil servants who do nothing but whose jobs are protected by the hugely powerful unions being the main cause. It's capitalism's way of keeping unemployment down and protecting the money supply.

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad. France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service. The WHO ranking is from 11 years ago, healthcare has changed massively since then. It also values the principle of equal access very highly. Your last sentence is just utter shite, i'm sat here with a payslip in front of me which details how much of my salary goes to EON, my 'mutuelle' in France. They are my insurance company here, which the law basically says i have to have. 60% of provision in France is public (i.e the hospitals are state run). Funding comes from insurance. Another doughnut. Just cause a third party handles some of the money doesn't mean it's private healthcare though does it? Are you just saying that some 'private entities' should handle the healthcare financial provision? If so why is that an advantage and how will they make enough money out of it for you to get your Bentley? I want answers!! You know you could have said the healthcare system in France is making the country bankrupt. What sections of the NHS service/financial services/delivery of care would be better of from privatisation? The unemployed are paid for by the state, the employed need an insurer. This site allows you to compare 'competing' companies offering different services and levels of coverage. http://mutuelle.compareo.net/ I'd also say the vaslty over-sized public sector iin France is causing them financial problems with the millions of civil servants who do nothing but whose jobs are protected by the hugely powerful unions being the main cause. I've got no problem with that as long as ability to pay ie job gaps etc are covered by the state. This is nice: "In France, the sicker you get, the less you pay. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and critical surgeries, such as a coronary bypass, are reimbursed at 100%. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Patients suffering from colon cancer, for instance, can receive Genentech Inc.'s (DNA ) Avastin without charge. In the U.S., a patient may pay $48,000 a year. France particularly excels in prenatal and early childhood care. Since 1945 the country has built a widespread network of thousands of health-care facilities, called Protection Maternelle et Infantile (PMI), to ensure that every mother and child in the country receives basic preventive care. Children are evaluated by a team of private-practice pediatricians, nurses, midwives, psychologists, and social workers. When parents fail to bring their children in for regular checkups, social workers are dispatched to the family home. Mothers even receive a financial incentive for attending their pre- and post-natal visits." I'd get out before me and Fop actually fire up the backup servers.

But the ones who can't afford it are probably better off (healthcare-wise) than people on a similar income in the US. At a guess, anyway. Of course they are.

...and Americans who can go to Cuba.

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad. France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service. The WHO ranking is from 11 years ago, healthcare has changed massively since then. It also values the principle of equal access very highly. Your last sentence is just utter shite, i'm sat here with a payslip in front of me which details how much of my salary goes to EON, my 'mutuelle' in France. They are my insurance company here, which the law basically says i have to have. 60% of provision in France is public (i.e the hospitals are state run). Funding comes from insurance. Another doughnut. Just cause a third party handles some of the money doesn't mean it's private healthcare though does it? Are you just saying that some 'private entities' should handle the healthcare financial provision? If so why is that an advantage and how will they make enough money out of it for you to get your Bentley? I want answers!! You know you could have said the healthcare system in France is making the country bankrupt. What sections of the NHS service/financial services/delivery of care would be better of from privatisation?

If you're talking about the Russian system as a historical overview, I suspect again monopoly plays a bigger role than private/public, it always does. A 100% publicly funded and run system is a monopoloy you doughnut. The words 'public ownership' make you break out in a sweat innit?

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad. France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service.

Would have thought France would be a better debating issue personally. To use Russia as an example of state systems gone bad is a level of depravity I wouldn't expect from you Chesney.

Christ what a load of diversionary twaddle. The Canadian system is 100% pubic money is my point and works well enough to take cross border hits from Americans desperate for a bit of heathcare. "Canada's publicly funded health care system is best described as an interlocking set of ten provincial and three territorial health insurance plans. Known to Canadians as "medicare", the system provides access to universal, comprehensive coverage for medically necessary hospital and physician services."

We've enquired about Zhirkov apparently.

Nicos covering all bases.

What your take on the Canadian system Chez?

Try backing that statement up. Evidence against that statement - Russia Evidence for that statement - ? Also, by making people take out social insurance, then individual contributions are related to income and preferences. How you can conclude this leads to less money in the system is beyond me, when systems organised like this pour 3 to 4 times more money per head into them? The problems with 'totally' private systems are ethical not financial!! All we need is a blend of the two. Anyway, the thread title was deliberately provocative in the run up to the organisations 60th birthday and the forthcoming report from Lord Darzi. There will be loads of announcements and guff in the next few weeks that wont change the fact that unless we find more money, you'll be no more likely to get the CAT scan, the operation early or access to life-saving drugs than someone from Poland, Hungary or the Czech republic. Who spend far less than us... How is Russia an example?

Does he deserve an 80k contract? No. Is he replaceable? Yes. isnt it best to get replacements in first ? Yes . dont think he could be replaced like for like tbh , he could be taught to play better tho . We'll have to wait and see really. KK likes clever players with a good touch and a bit of vision. Burning pace is fantastic asset to have, but his all-round game is Dyer. FYP

Does he deserve an 80k contract? No. Is he replaceable? Yes. isnt it best to get replacements in first ? Yes . dont think he could be replaced like for like tbh , he could be taught to play better tho . We'll have to wait and see really. KK likes clever players with a good touch and a bit of vision. Burning pace is fantastic asset to have, but his all-round game is weak.

Does he deserve an 80k contract? No. Is he replaceable? Yes.

Shocking performance from Germany. A team with absolutely no ideas.

Who knows what the truth is, but this article does seem to have a lot of details reg Oba's contract. Agent maybe??

She was very scary though. I'd have offered to clean her shoes every morning.

Totally agree. The fact is most big organisations are wasteful and that to just level that at the NHS is ridiculous on one level and wholly disingenuous on another level. Insurance/fund/investment companies are trying to get their claws into the NHS having for most of the 90's milked and robbed people of their money with investment plans from hell. Do private patients still get dumped back onto the NHS if they are long term sick?????

The fear that is developing around the fact that Darnell is mostly sensible...They can't work it out!

The white black man has got the house in lockdown!!

It's a thought crime innit..