@Kasz, yeah, that last article you posted, where the woman who was on private health got rejected from the using NHS services actually really pissed me off when I first heard about it.

That's not what the NHS is for, dammit, and it pisses me off so much when I hear/read about these things.

But, the NHS won't be like this forever. Every time a story comes out about things like this, more and more pressure builds up against the Government to do something about it.

I think it will become a key issue of the next election.

Does this not defeat your argument of the NHS not doing this though?

Because they do.... quite a fair amount i'd say.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1572683/NHS-U-turn-on-prostate-cancer-treatment.html

http://www.irwinmitchell.com/PressOffice/PressReleases/denied-cancer-drug-tarceva-claim.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3545397/Women-being-denied-cervical-cancer-vaccine-on-NHS.html

Also interestingly.... doctors in the US are largely democrats to my knowledge.

Well, I think it says something that each time the NHS rejects something it's news worthy. Because a lot of these stories hit the BBC 10 o' Clock news.

Oh, and I used a small "c" for conservatism, not a capital one.

So... these are the only ones that are the case because they're the first ones i found?

No, my point was that you wouldn't get a news article about every time a health insurance company rejects a claim, but you would for the NHS.

I think that shows something about what people expect from the NHS, compared to what people expect from health insurance companies.

You've proved your point about the NHS rejecting treatment. You've now got to prove that your system won't do the same.

Oh, and there are going to be some big changes coming to the NHS over the next few years... so, let's hope you won't be able to bring up any more articles after next year.

SamuelRSmith said: No, my point was that you wouldn't get a news article about every time a health insurance company rejects a claim, but you would for the NHS. I think that shows something about what people expect from the NHS, compared to what people expect from health insurance companies. You've proved your point about the NHS rejecting treatment. You've now got to prove that your system won't do the same. Oh, and there are going to be some big changes coming to the NHS over the next few years... so, let's hope you won't be able to bring up any more articles after next year.

Lets look at the two different proccesses if it did.

NHS rejects a claim.  People go to the government.  Government sits on it until the people get enough political capital change is made... eventually.

Private insurance comapny in contract with the government refuses treatment.  Government threatens the insurance company... saying they may not look to renew there polcies if they cheat the people out of treatments when they agreed to give universal healthcare.  They're paying the same amount per month anyway so there is no incentive to greatly save money.

The company changes policy so it doesn't risk losing the government contracts that are a large part of their buisness.  Or it doesn't... and then loses it's contracts... which would take about as long as it takes NICE to change anything.

Apparently, because I took a break from this thread I also left on a permanent basis and received a moderation warning for doing so. So, I guess I'll just have to keep on posting or face a ban. How come this has become a thread about the NHS? The NHS is fine for what it is. Anyway: As for the whole capitalism vs socialism thing. Capitalism only benefits the wealthy. It does not really help poor people to get better quality of life nor does it spread wealth equally. It rewards only greed. Now, socialism that would be great, for me and the town I live in (which is dying and made up predominantly of poor people like me) socialism would result in a massive increase in quality of life for the whole town. Trying to say that capitalism has made the poor better off is like trying to say that natural disasters decrease the surplus population - utterly wrong in every measurable sense. The last 10yrs especially have seen the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. This is unsustainable as sooner or late the poor people will get so infuriated that you will have another peasants revolt.

So your “The Poor”

200 years ago, if you were “The Poor”, you got to eat 1 meal a day, if you were lucky. That meal was most likely potatoes. You had one, maybe two sets of cloths. The only medical treatment you got was something made up by someone you knew. You had to shit in a hole, and heat was something other people had.

Today, you have the internment, a computer, video games I assume, TV, electricity, access to the same over the counter medicine the rich have, access to a lot more food (hell, by those standards fast food would be so much better), plumbing, the list goes on.

Someone from 200 years ago, if we could pull them through time, would look at you complaining, slap you in the face, and say get over yourself.

You think if 200 years ago we started living in socialism your live would be better? Give me a break.

Now, use that capitalist technology, and flame me.

Capitalism.

Oh yea, and do you own a cell phone? A technology that never could exist if not for Capitalism. Cell phones for years were funded by the rich, so companies could continue reducing the cost and increasing market share. Now poor people can afford them. If we lived in socialism, if we could not provide cell phones for all, we would not provide cell phones for anyone. Thus, no one would ever have one, and it would have been cost prohibitive to continue the technology.

So if you do have a cell phone, throw it away. I wouldn't want your life improved by capitalism.