Britain To Charge For Their Shitty Healthcare - Who's For 'Free' Healthcare Now?

hellblazer

New member
Sep 20, 2008
3,021
86
0
Here's 'free' healthcare in action for you hahaha

_________________________________________________


Britain must charge for health care and raise retiring age to escape debt crisis, says IMF

By Alex Brummer
Last updated at 9:06 AM on 02nd October 2009

Gordon Brown was warned last night to raise the retirement age above 65 and introduce NHS charges to tackle the soaring state deficit.
In a devastating intervention, the International Monetary Fund called for radical changes to the pension system and spending cuts that go far beyond the plans outlined by the Prime Minister this week.
The global watchdog said root and branch changes to public sector spending would be necessary to 'help keep a lid on the debt' and restore financial stability.

article-0-063BD679000005DC-543_468x286.jpg
Under threat: The IMF has long advocated that Britain introduce charges and bring an end to the high cost, free for all NHS and has renewed its call for action

The IMF's broadside is highly unusual ahead of an election and reflects grave concern at the debt mountain built up by the Brown government.

The public reprimand will rekindle memories of the humiliation of the Callaghan government in 1976 when the IMF forced massive budget cuts on Britain to deal with the collapse of the pound.
Treasury ministers privately admit that the budget deficit is expected to rise to £200billion this year - £25billion more than the Chancellor predicted in the Budget.
That is the equivalent of £3,257 of debt for every man, woman and child, or £9,457 for the average family.

Oliver Blanchard, the IMF's top economist, told a press conference at a joint annual meeting with the World Bank that the next British government will 'have to take measures that improve the medium-term debt outlook'.

He added: 'That means reforms of the retirement system, that means reform of the healthcare system.'

The IMF said that radical reform of pensions should lead to a rise in the national retirement age from 65 and save billions of pounds.
And they called for politicians to target 'unfunded' final salary public-sector pension schemes which will potentially cost the the Exchequer up to £1trillion.
Mr Blanchard said reform was vital, adding that it would be 'a joke' if the Government settled instead for new fiscal rules that might be torn up at times of crisis.
The IMF estimated that by next year Britain's debt will represent 81.7 per cent of output.
Even with planned cuts and tax increases, it predicted a figure of 98.3 per cent by 2014.
There was a glimmer of hope for Alistair Darling in that the IMF raised Britain's growth forecast for next year to 0.9 per cent from 0.2 per cent.
The Chancellor's March budget went for a more optimistic 1.25 per cent.
The upgraded UK forecast was accompanied by caution that unemployment will continue to rise from 7.6 per cent of the workforce this year to 9.3 per cent next year. That would see three million without jobs.
The IMF also warned that Britain risks a new house price slump, despite an apparent recent market upturn. Their global outlook pointed to ' further large declines'.
In a bid to ease public concerns, senior Cabinet sources have revealed that Labour plans to make spending cuts and asset sales worth £75billion, taking an axe to major defence projects and the pay of judges, top civil servants and NHS managers.
Asked yesterday whether his spending plans were credible, Mr Brown told Five News: 'Absolutely. I've offered a deficit reduction plan. We've raised the top rate of tax. National insurance will rise by half of 1 per cent and we'll be cutting costs.
'There will be further announcements about how we sell off more than £16billion of assets. I have been absolutely straight with the British people.'
But Philip Hammond, Tory Treasury spokesman, said: 'It is increasingly clear that Labour have no plan to tackle the debt crisis they created.
'At their conference this week they showed absolutely no recognition of the size of the problem, and refused to be straight with people about the fact that their own Treasury documents show they are planning cuts to spending on public services.
'Labour still won't come clean with the British people.'
 


Like someone wrote out in the comments there, the IMF is a front for huge international corporations. They and the World Bank, put lesser nations into slavery.
 
You're quoting the daily mail. That's like quoting Keith Olberman on MSNBC about prayer in schools, lol.....
 
Daily Mail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Overview

The Mail was originally a broadsheet but switched to a compact format[3] on 3 May 1971, the 75th anniversary of its founding. On this date it also absorbed the Daily Sketch, which had been published as a tabloid by the same company. The publisher of the Mail, the Daily Mail and General Trust is currently a FTSE 250 company and the paper has a circulation of more than two million which is the third-largest circulation of any English language daily newspaper and one of the highest in the world.[4]
Circulation figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in July 2009 show gross sales of 2,178,640 for the Daily Mail.[1] According to a December 2004 survey, 53% of Daily Mail readers voted for the Conservative Party, compared to 21% for Labour and 17% for the Liberal Democrats.[5] The main concern of Viscount Rothermere, the current chairman and main shareholder, is that the circulation be maintained. He testified before a House of Lords select committee that "we need to allow editors the freedom to edit", and therefore the newspaper had no firm political allegiance or policy.[6] The Mail has been edited by Paul Dacre since 1992.
[edit] History


....unbiased, right? lol
 
Daily Mail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Overview

The Mail was originally a broadsheet but switched to a compact format[3] on 3 May 1971, the 75th anniversary of its founding. On this date it also absorbed the Daily Sketch, which had been published as a tabloid by the same company. The publisher of the Mail, the Daily Mail and General Trust is currently a FTSE 250 company and the paper has a circulation of more than two million which is the third-largest circulation of any English language daily newspaper and one of the highest in the world.[4]
Circulation figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in July 2009 show gross sales of 2,178,640 for the Daily Mail.[1] According to a December 2004 survey, 53% of Daily Mail readers voted for the Conservative Party, compared to 21% for Labour and 17% for the Liberal Democrats.[5] The main concern of Viscount Rothermere, the current chairman and main shareholder, is that the circulation be maintained. He testified before a House of Lords select committee that "we need to allow editors the freedom to edit", and therefore the newspaper had no firm political allegiance or policy.[6] The Mail has been edited by Paul Dacre since 1992.
[edit] History

....unbiased, right? lol

Are you really asserting the IMF didn't say this? Because that's just idiocy on a scale I've never seen before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Refrozen
"Shitty healthcare"? Current issues aside, compared to the US system it's top notch.

Here's how the US' current healthcare system performs internationally. In a study from 2007 it's in the last spot in almost all areas they compared.

Among the six nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2006 and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity.

[...]

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health insurance systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their long-term "medical home." It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. substantially underperforms other countries on measures of access to care and equity in health care between populations with above-average and below average incomes.

Source - Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care - The Commonwealth Fund

Full study as a pdf on that page (I have to admit I didn't read it all though). There's also a nice scorecard graphic of the comparison, although it's not as colorfully presented and spun as on Fox.
 
"Shitty healthcare"? Current issues aside, compared to the US system it's top notch.

Here's how the US' current healthcare system performs internationally. In a study from 2007 it's in the last spot in almost all areas they compared.

Source - Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care - The Commonwealth Fund

Full study as a pdf on that page (I have to admit I didn't read it all though). There's also a nice scorecard graphic of the comparison, although it's not as colorfully presented and spun as on Fox.

You present a piece of propaganda created by a liberal organization, whereas I presented a simple, unassailable fact: The IMF advised Britain to begin charging for its healthcare because the nation is in such a perilous financial state. All of the socialist cheerleaders feening for nationalized healthcare can try to divert and deflect as much as they want, but unfortunately facts are facts.
 
Yeah, it would suck if people in the UK didn't have their taxes lowered and ended up having to pay $2,500 extra a year for health care. Of course, basic logic would then dictate that it would also suck if there was a nation where people already pay even more than that. Unfortunately, facts are facts.


2007 health care expenditure per person

UK = $2,992 ($2,445 paid by the government)

USA = $7,290 ($3,310 paid by the government)
 
The propaganda I present is at least as good as your propaganda.


Perspective is where it's at, but open mindedness is what I was really trying to achieve here.
 
Yeah, it would suck if people in the UK didn't have their taxes lowered and ended up having to pay $2,500 extra a year for health care. Of course, basic logic would then dictate that it would also suck if there was a nation where people already pay even more than that. Unfortunately, facts are facts.


2007 health care expenditure per person

UK = $2,992 ($2,445 paid by the government)

USA = $7,290 ($3,310 paid by the government)



haha, what say yey gay I mean hellblazer.....


Also the deceit is only partly to blame on the "free" healthcare.

You like the IMF now but I am sure somewhere else you claim they are the devil.

FUCK, at least they "can" retire there. No one can anymore here.

Let's not forget these nations that are "nationalized" , "socialized" and dare I say borderline "communist".

Have better schools where people can actually point out shit on a map.

wait just saw this they are living to long we they should do death panels like Obama wants here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-born-Britain-live-100-say-researchers.html
 
You present a piece of propaganda created by a liberal organization, whereas I presented a simple, unassailable fact: The IMF advised Britain to begin charging for its healthcare because the nation is in such a perilous financial state. All of the socialist cheerleaders feening for nationalized healthcare can try to divert and deflect as much as they want, but unfortunately facts are facts.
I think the point was that you called our health care "shitty" (sounds like an opinion to me, not a "simple unassailable fact"), not that you were able to directly quote an article.

I don't have any particular allegiance to the NHS, but I'd like to know how you come to the conclusion that it's "shitty".
 
Hellblazer, yet again, you lost all credibility in a political thread you created with just the title. Have you ever been further than 5 miles from your home? I doubt it.
 
Hellblazer, yet again, you lost all credibility in a political thread you created with just the title. Have you ever been further than 5 miles from your home? I doubt it.

What does being 5 miles from your home have to do with anything. Oh is this the part where if someone is a conservative than they are ignorant, redneck etc, etc, blah, blah.

I guess I am to blame as well. When I think Liberal, I think handouts, black, inner city, looking for the govment to pay the cable bill. or east/west coast drama fag.

Hell, we all know only black panthers and fags are Liberals! which one are you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: guerilla
These political threads are always pretty predictable. I think we need a change in the type of people we put into office period. There are crazies on the left and the right. There are also people such as Chris Dodd who hasn't had any job in his life other than being in the congress or senate. If we started electing people who had real world experiences and worked for what they had whether they are conservative or liberal then we would be a lot better off.

The major thing we need to address here in the states now is how we are going to create jobs since the real predicted numbers on unemployment are around 20% with many more under-employed. We are loosing our manufacturing base where we pay workers $15/hour plus basic benefits and loosing it to places like China who pay there workers $10/day and give them no benefits. I just don't know how we can tell a corporation that somehow our workers are that much better at manual labor.
 
WTF? The IMF is advising (unasked) first-world countries on how to spend their money / structure policies?