Forgetmenot525

tismek wrote on Oct 14, '11

I see this is the BBC interpretation of the report..............they often manipulate information with the intention of misleading and misinforming. I'm sure there is room for improvement in the NHS, but there is room for improvement in every thing. The failings this report highlights are mostly in wards dealing with the elderly and are caused by the understaffing of these wards. Sometimes there is just too much to do and too few people to do it. This is a direct result of government decisions, the same government who are now saying the NHS doesn't work and is in need of reform. If they really wanted reform that works, all they need do is increase staffing levels and let the staff do the job they were trained to do at the level they were trained to do it. When this government of ours start talking about the amount of money the NHS costs, maybe they should consider moving funds away from illegal wars of occupation in far away lands and transferring funds into the NHS. But their solution seems to be to sell the NHS off instead.

LOL you can go to the Care Quality Commission site and read the report itself - theres no difference.

However, I do get a sense that there is a "game" being played here - run the NHS down, to highlight problems as a reason for privatisation. If the energy and resources were put instead into improving these failing areas, then privatisation would not even be being discussed. It was the same thing Councils did in the 90s/early noughties with Council Housing being sold to Housing Associations. Different product same game. We need to unify as a country on this issue or we will be sold down the river in the same way that social housing was.

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 14, '11

tismek said

Again the NHS is the hospital service and ancillary services

this was something else my sister and I talked about. She doesn't seem to think the so called privatisation of GP's has made an awful lot of difference. The GP's still provide exactly the same service to exactly the same people. This seems to be 'privatisation' in name only. From what I know by talking to English friends and family, the decision to to make GP's 'independent' was a government led initiative imposed on the GP's who didn't particularly want it. And its not exactly 'privatisation' in the sense most people would understand. GP's are budget holders, they own and manage their own surgeries on behalf of the NHS. There are no big insurance companies reaping profits from the GP surgeries, just the practice itself providing a service.

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 14, '11, edited on Oct 14, '11

tismek said

Did you see yesterday's report by the Care Quality Commission?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15293747

tismek wrote on Oct 14, '11

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/10/stafford-hospital-patients-risk-watchdog?newsfeed=true

What I find alarming is that this report relates to 2004 -2008 only. It is an historical review. Where are the current figures?

I know from my visit to hospital last year that things on the wards are far from good. I was treated appallingly and I feel that the neuralgia I now have in my head is as a result of that care.

I also know that the things I witnessed when my hubby was dying in hospital are unconscionable.

There is no doubt that there is great care out there. The care I received during my operation and in post op was beyond exemplary. It was when I got to the wards that the trouble started.

Its simply not good enough.

But that saying, I could not afford to pay for treatment so Im caught between a rock and a hard place.

tismek wrote on Oct 14, '11

Again the NHS is the hospital service and ancillary services.

Did you see yesterday's report by the Care Quality Commission?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15293747

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 14, '11

bennett1 said

How so? We in the US hear so much about the "problems" encountered with the NHS in England; I discount all of it. But am seriously interested in what sorts of problems there might be from someone who isn't trying to talk me out of "socialized" medicine.

FOR BENNET...............have spoken to my sister who lives in England and whose family have used the NHS maybe more than most. This is what she said; We spoke about the proposed changes to the NHS and agreed its just a ploy by the conservatives to sell it off and these changes are not really needed. She cited a recent example; they took their 18 year old son to the accident and emergency dept at the local hospital because he suffered severe abdominal pain. They arrived at the dept at 9pm and by 11pm he had a bed on a ward, was prepped ready for emergency surgery and the surgical team were there to assess him. She thought this was excellent service. She was referred to the rheumatology dept and waited a little over 2 months for an appointment, she thought that was too long to wait but once seen by the dept her treatment and follow up appointments have been excellent. She thought about all the contact she has needed with the NHS over the years for herself, her partner, her children and our mother, she thinks on the whole treatment has been very good. She really does appreciate the fact it is a free at the point of delivery service, the thought of the service not being there terrifies her due to the various medical problems suffered by her family. The only thing she seemed concerned about was the time it sometimes took to see a specialist after being referred by the GP, the wait time has been a couple of months. We agreed this was probably due to the large population numbers in her area.If something serious has been suspected, by this I mean a cancer or heart problem or another life threatening illness, there is very little wait time for appointments and/or tests, they have been carried out within the week or at most a couple of weeks. We spoke of the recent newspaper reports which stated 20% of hospitals are failing to reach good standards of care, her husband investigated this on the NHS WEBSITE , looked at the reports and found that was in fact 20 HOSPITALS that were identified as failing to meet standards, NOT 20% as reported. This is an example of how the media manipulates information to mislead the public and support these so called 'reforms'. I listened to the news late last night and suddenly the 20% had changed to 1/5, which sounds even worse. This was a BBC report..............
On the whole she has no serious complaints, we talked about it and agreed that when someone is ill, the relatives are worried and tend to complain out of frustration, but when there is not an immediate emotional issue to cloud opinions, there is appreciation of the service and very few complaints.

tismek wrote on Oct 12, '11

acousticeagle said

I think it's bad enough that water usage is privatised. So there's infrastruture to maintain but water - all water usage is now charged. When did the capitalists decide they owned water? God help us all.

Very true.

The privatisation of these industries was the slippery slope - Maggie Thatcher followed by horse-of-a-different colour Blair.

Im not suggesting Nationalisation, but we should at least keep this.

Nessie

acousticeagle wrote on Oct 12, '11

there is a bill about to go through Parliament which will begin the process of privatising the NHS...........of course the government don't admit that, but that's exactly what the bill will do, and in part of this video she says ...'its not theirs to sell... it's ours'..........and it is, we have paid for it with outr taxes all of our lives, they have no right to sell it off, its not theirs to sell.

That's appalling and alarming. We have something like a NHS here in Aussie, and I am scared that whatever happens in Britian will follow on here. I couldn't imagine a privatised health service here - it's unthinkable. British parliament selling out to the capitalists - it's like a tale of horror. I think it's bad enough that water usage is privatised. So there's infrastruture to maintain but water - all water usage is now charged. When did the capitalists decide they owned water? God help us all.

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 12, '11

tismek wrote on Oct 11, '11

bennett1 said

Scream this from the rooftops.

I think we are :o)

There is a march (demonstration) here in Norfolk on 22nd October for this. I will try and go.

tismek wrote on Oct 11, '11

bennett1 said

Yes, it is. I think we all agree that if you are rich, you can get anything you want in terms of care/drugs/surgeries. Also agreed are the inefficiencies of the systems. I believe yours, NHS is probably more efficient than the US. But whatever.

In the US, decisions are made on the basis of ability to pay. For example, after my husband's heart attack, I heard the head doctor talking to student doctors outsode of my husband's hospital room. He said "The patient will do best on L----- but he probably can't afford it, so we will offer X---- as an alternative." Of course we chose L-----. It cost us £48 a month ($75) because our insurance would not cover fully. (Not cost effective.) We were lucky that we could afford $900 a month for the better medicine.

Under your system, we would not have had to pay quite as much, I don't think. At the time my husband was in his 50's and otherwise quite healthy. (He is still alive and kicking.) But that is how the system works here.

You can judge which system is more humane.

Ahhh... on the NHS you would only have to pay your prescription fee charges which I think are around a tenner an item? I don't know as being a carer and on benefits I don't have to pay anything. However, there have been moves here to "change" prescriptions to cheaper medication so you have to give a good argument why you need to keep taking them (fewer side effects, easier to open/use etc.)

A good example is the common stomach medicine Lanzaparazole. A lot of people on pain medication are switched to the cheaper Omaprazole. Now for many people, they don't notice the difference, but you aren't told you are being switched and you have to give your GP good reasons why you want to switch back.

They are doing that will a lot of meds here.

Still, at least we don't have to pay stupid amounts for them.

bennett1 wrote on Oct 11, '11

tismek said

You change the NHS now, you will never get it back.

Scream this from the rooftops.

bennett1 wrote on Oct 11, '11

tismek said

Yes - and the same method is used in the US too - by Insurance companies.

tismek wrote on Oct 11, '11

BUT

and this is where the protest comes in.

The GPs are NOT NHS. They are private. They are not going to manage all this out of the goodness of their own hearts. They want paying for it.

And that is the kicker. Those contracts are not going to be cheap. So... all that money saved, will not be going on the patients still, but rather into the hands of the GPs many of whom will use the windfall to build better "health centres" which can then provide those services which those patients who cannot get access to on the NHS, now have to pay for.

This whole thing is dependant on the "honesty and integrity" of GPs.

Don't get me wrong - there are some EXCELLENT GPs out there. But how long will it take for the system to crumble? The system endures long after individuals retire.

You change the NHS now, you will never get it back.

Thus the protests.

tismek wrote on Oct 11, '11

A few years out of date ( 2008) but it seems to cover the general idea
http://www.newstatesman.com/health/2008/08/life-nice-treatment-nhs-health
''How can NICE justify its refusal to allow these patients a few extra months of life? Its methodology looks at the cost-effectiveness of medical treatments in terms of cost per extra 'quality-adjusted life year' (QALY).

If a drug or other treatment delivers an extra QALY at roughly £20,000 or less, then the treatment is judged to be cost-effective, and hence recommended. If the sums come out less favourably, then NICE decides against making that drug or treatment available on the NHS.''
If I understand this................basically, with out going into detail, it means that if an extra year can be bought for £20,00 or less its OK to use the drug. Which seems , as the article said, calculating and heard hearted, but its better than basing it on how big the patients bank balance is and with out the NHS, thats exactly what would happen.

Yes - and the same method is used in the US too - by Insurance companies.

I agree we have to remember that in country with a conservative estimated population standing at 65 million people on this tiny island, something has to give. Sadly, its the chronically ill and disabled who are most likely to suffer from poor service. They cost more with fewer benefits to society. Its a fact of life.

However, that does not make it right.

There are huge inefficiencies in the NHS - if those could be addressed then a lot of extra resources could be freed up to make these services more freely available.

This is SORT OF what these NHS reforms are all about. Get rid of the "middle managers" ie: the PCTs (Health Authorities) and give the money directly to the GPs to spend directly on their own patients (on the understanding that they are the people who know the needs of their patients best) this then frees up more money to be spent on the chronic conditions and more people get help.

With it so far? :o)

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 11, '11

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 11, '11

tismek said

Its called the QUALY assessment (Quality of life year), with financial consideration concerning your treatment being based on your projected prognosis, your "value to society (ie: productivity) and whether the treatment you receive will affect others you care for (ie: parents with young children) or if you are an employer.

I've never heard of that before..............

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 11, '11

bennett1 said

I don't know that this is difficult to understand. It was just a fact that I did not know.

I meant the whole situation is pretty weird...............didn't mean to imply you find anything 'hard' to understand, I know your understanding is excellent :-).............I just didn't word it particularly well..

bennett1 wrote on Oct 11, '11

this must be really hard to understand from where you are but Scotland has more autonomy than Wales in many things.

I don't know that this is difficult to understand. It was just a fact that I did not know.

bennett1 wrote on Oct 11, '11

tismek said

Other considerations that can affect care include your income, whether you are a parent, single parent or married, if you have family or not, and of course your age. Its called the QUALY assessment (Quality of life year),

Oh gosh when I first read this it sounded so scary. But I read more about it, from both US and UK sources and it sounds far more sensible. While it affects individual patients it seems like it is a recommendation about the cost effectiveness of a treatment. We have much the same hear in the US, but it is based solely on ability to pay. So a person in the US with less ability to pay would get a less effective but cheaper drug and a person with a greater ability to pay would get the better drug. All in all, it still seems to balance out in favor of the NHS. It would be lovely to have enough resources to give everyone "Rolls Royce" treatment, but until we do, balancing factors is going to come into the picture. It just depends on which factors one wishes to balance.

tismek wrote on Oct 11, '11, edited on Oct 11, '11

I think it is important to remember that certain services - such as Emergency care and Hospital care for certain conditions are "ringfenced". But it is a postcode lottery - some areas are better than others. It really does depend on where you live an what your areas "pet projects" are.

If you have a condition that is not on the list of "preferred" conditions - ie: if you have a long term or chronic disability such as Alzheimer's, a learning disability, if you are pregnant, need a hip replacement, have diabetes, and so on, then your experience of the NHS is going to depend very much on the services in your area.

Other considerations that can affect care include your income, whether you are a parent, single parent or married, if you have family or not, and of course your age. Its called the QUALY assessment (Quality of life year), with financial consideration concerning your treatment being based on your projected prognosis, your "value to society (ie: productivity) and whether the treatment you receive will affect others you care for (ie: parents with young children) or if you are an employer.

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 11, '11

bennett1 said

I think Mitch lives in Wales

this must be really hard to understand from where you are but Scotland has more autonomy than Wales in many things. There is an NHS for England and Wales, its exactly the same service in both countries, and then there is NHS Scotland, which serves us.....

blondino01ontal9 wrote on Oct 11, '11

There is choice here too for those who can pay ... there is private health care. Never hear much said about that.
Same doctors & surgoens but in hospital run like 5 star hotel lol

So choice is pay if you can or go NHS ... İ had private health care till 3 years ago

blondino01ontal9 wrote on Oct 11, '11

I have to agree with Jan, I've lived in Scotland for 20+ years and I've nothing bad to say about NHS Scotland. I've had a couple of hospital admissions, my family have had different reasons to use the NHS and none of us has ever encountered a problem. But, my sisters in England have both said things are different down there.

same here Loretta .... my Mum has nurses coming to the house 3 days a week for 18 months .. transport to hospital apts .... drugs delivered daily all marked out with what to take and times ın liitle bubbles .... nurses phone at weekends to see she is k etc etc etc ... İ am proud of our NHS Scotland ..

When İ had treatment and op last year İ looked for a reason to complain ... even got good food !!!! Could write a boook about my Dads 10 yrs before he died. We got a and wriiten card from his consultant saying she was so sorry she could not save him ..... never expected that .

bennett1 wrote on Oct 11, '11

I think Mitch lives in Wales. On to complaints, everybody complains about healthcare. The lucky ones are the ones who have healthcare to complain about. I think all of the so-called "complaining" is a bogus issue. From what you've said your system is far and away, even in England, better than ours. Nurses who come to the house!! Doctors coming to the house!! Fantastic! I know of no where in the US where healthcare providers come to the house.

Complaints about the NHS seem to be on a par with complaints about one's job. Everyone does it at one time or another, but they are damn glad they have it. I am sure there are times that the NHS lets people down or provides subpar care. But they are getting care and I tend to dismiss them, even more now on the basis of what you have said.

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 11, '11

bennett1 said

hat is what I think as well. Most if not all of the people saying there are waits in England are from the US. I have heard one English person trash the NHS and he is a Tory.

I would consider my sisters to be politically to the right of me..........( .lol but there again many people are) I've never asked them to be specific about the NHS, I've just heard them moaning in a generalised way. I will make a point of asking them what they really think and get back to you, Ask Mitch what he thinks, he lives in England and I'll ask other people just to see what people really think.

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 11, '11

forelithe said

Canadians, thought a 14 year old Scottish immigrant to our country was the greatest Canadian of all time. His name was Tommy Douglas, Outside of Canada , people who have heard the name know him as Donald Sutherland's father in law, and Kiefer's Grandfather, but he's the man who brought universal health care to Canada. It will have to take something pretty spectacular to de-throne our Tommy.

Thank you, I didn't know that, he sounds like a pretty switched on guy, seems like you have a lot to be grateful to him for.

bennett1 wrote on Oct 11, '11

The 4 biggest health insurance companies in the US made $11,000,000,000 in profits in 2007. That is a lot of incentive to spread lies about "socialized medicine".

bennett1 wrote on Oct 11, '11

bennett1 said

if you have no insurance, the wait time in the US is until you can put cash down

Part of the reason our health care costs are so high is that sick people without insurance wait until they are quite sick and then they go to an emergency room at the hospital where they must be seen. There they go to the end of the line (depending on how sick they are), can wait as long as 24 hours, and are billed as much as $250.

bennett1 wrote on Oct 11, '11

there are people in England who would like to see the NHS privatised and thus it is in their best interests to claim the NHS doesn't work.

That is what I think as well. Most if not all of the people saying there are waits in England are from the US. I have heard one English person trash the NHS and he is a Tory. As for wait times, there are wait times in the US as well. Especially outside of larger metropolitan areas one can wait as long as 6 weeks in the US for specific tests once a screening has shown a suspicion of cancer. There are similar wait times (4-8 weeks) to see a specialist here.

The whole "wait time" is a false issue. People arguing against Single Payer insurance here in the US would have you believe that we have no wait times. Not true.

And, of course, if you have no insurance, the wait time in the US is until you can put cash down. (Most states do have programs for uninsured children.)

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 11, '11

bennett1 said

forgot to mention my mother.............81 and fell and broke her shoulder a week before christmas. Taken in the ambulance to hospital where she stayed for two days, sent home with a 'home care package' which meant regular visits from her GP, a visit from a physiotherapist to see if she needed equipment in the house, bath seats commode etc and visits twice per day from two carers to assist with washing and dressing. This care package was booked for 6 weeks because that is the usual time it takes bones to heal sufficiently to allow the person the regain Independence. If the need was there the care package would have been extended. She is now quite well ( as well as you would expect a 81 year old to be) but because of her fall the GP does now see her more often. She lives in England.

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 11, '11

bennett1 said

How so? We in the US hear so much about the

its difficult to be specific, but I'll try.............the time between being referred by a GP to see a specialist appears to be shorter here than there. I have recently been referred back to orthopaedics and waited about 4 weeks for an appointment, my sister in England has told me she would expect to wait much longer. ( how much longer I don't know). One of my very best friends has serious heart problems, she has had a heart bypass operation and since then has had two lots of lesser heart surgery. Her hospital treatment was fantastic and I don't recall huge waiting times. She has been treated in Dundee Hospital which is her local hospital but she has also been treated in Aberdeen hospital and Edinburgh hospital because they offered specialist treatment and the expert surgical team she needed. My father ( who lived in England) was waiting for heart bypass surgery for months and it was only after my sisters complained that his operation was bought forward. I have no way of knowing exactly how long he waited, I don't know if this was the norm or if he was unlucky, the delay could have been caused by any number of things but as I wasn't directly involved I don't know, I'm just going on what my sisters told me. My sisters do complain about the NHS, but in reality they have both used the NHS a lot. The sister who lives in France has been treated for hypertension, borderline diabetes, arthritis and has had knee replacement. Her husband has been treated for hypertension, thyroid problems and heart problems. The reason they live in France is not because the health service is any better ( although I don't think it is any worse) its because they both enjoy better health in the warmer climate. The sister who lives in England has arthritis and sees a specialist regularly, she is gluten intolerant and has all of her medication and gluten free food on prescription for which she pays a nominal monthly fee, I'm not sure what the charges are because there are no prescription charges in Scotland. She also has an hereditary condition which causes dangerously high levels of cholesterol, this is also treated regularly on the NHS. Her daughter and son have chronic ear infections and are partially deaf, they have both had several hospital admissions and delicate surgery on the inner ear. Prescription charges for those under 18 are free in England. My guess is, and it is only a guess, that because population numbers are a lot lower in Scotland the NHS is not under the pressure it is in England and thus appears to provide a better service. I also think ( again personal opinion) that there are people in England who would like to see the NHS privatised and thus it is in their best interests to claim the NHS doesn't work. The privatisation of GP surgeries that Ness ie spoke of has not happened here in Scotland. .............sorry I can't be more specific, maybe you should ask someone who lives in England what the problems are there. My belief it that what ever the problems are..............the NHS is too valuable to lose to privatisation and it's a much better health service than many other countries enjoy. If there are problems within the NHS...........we should fix them not give up and sell it.

bennett1 wrote on Oct 11, '11

my sisters in England have both said things are different down there.

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 11, '11

blondino01ontal9 said

have a lot of dealing with NHS Scotland over the past years

forelithe wrote on Oct 11, '11

I like the way you think mitchyir !

tismek wrote on Oct 10, '11

still looking for a video of it but found this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15234631

"Our correspondent said large numbers were NHS workers, and many wore hospital scrubs. Others wore bandages with fake blood.

He said disruption had been "minimal" and numbers at the protest were lower than expected."

Yup - people are sleepwalking into disaster! :o)

mitchylr wrote on Oct 10, '11

"it's not theirs to sell....it's our NHS" Damned straight it is!!! Well said.

blondino01ontal9 wrote on Oct 10, '11

maybe I should point out that the NHS for England and Wales is under different management to the NHS in Scotland...........ours seems a little safer at present.

I have a lot of dealing with NHS Scotland over the past years - my Dad's regular leakemia treatment & long spells in hopital. My own operation to remove a lump a year ago , and my Mums treatment where nurses come to the house 3 times a week.

I cannot praise it highly enough and to lose it would be a disaster. Any complaints I had were usually due to human error
& inter dep communication but the medical & nursing staff - respect to them.

bennett1 wrote on Oct 9, '11

The article and picture were very good. Thanks, Loretta.

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 9, '11

bennett1 said

Well, it is too late now. What did happen on the bridge? Was she surrounded?

or there is this one..............this includes a video

http://www.channel4.com/news/health-reform-protesters-block-westminster-bridge

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 9, '11

bennett1 said

Well, it is too late now. What did happen on the bridge? Was she surrounded?

still looking for a video of it but found this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15234631

bennett1 wrote on Oct 9, '11

Well, it is too late now. What did happen on the bridge? Was she surrounded?

bennett1 wrote on Oct 9, '11

Watched it - wonderful. What courage - we need more people like her in our country. I am always surprised by one or two - well, just one actually - a FB Brit friend who I have had forever and he is totally against Obama, totally Tory, and USES the NHS. Well, I suppose he is like the people here who are sadly deluded. I would like to be there.

veryfrank wrote on Oct 9, '11

bennett1 said

I can't watch the video, but YES, save the NHS, save what you can, don't let them take you backward.

I fully agree with Bennett.

tismek wrote on Oct 9, '11

BTW - none of them have access to computers.

tismek wrote on Oct 9, '11

I had a carers group meeting this week. 10 people turned up. All are carers for severely disabled people in my area. Several are diabetic. They have now been told by the GP practice that has caused me so much trouble that if they want chiropody, dieticians or physiotherapy, they now have to pay for it.

This is NOT NHS.

tismek wrote on Oct 9, '11

And this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8807055/NHS-patients-offered-private-treatment-by-GPs.html

tismek wrote on Oct 9, '11

Certainly the East of England - read this:

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/newsarticle-content/-/article_display_list/12511685/pcts-clamour-to-put-entire-care-pathways-out-for-tender

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 9, '11

thats awful.............guess we better make sure ours doesn't go the same way.

tismek wrote on Oct 9, '11

Scotland is different as you say babes - but yes in England GPs are now private consortia.

They are contracted by the NHS to deliver certain services but they are free to practice private medicine too.

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 9, '11

tismek said

The only problem is babes, its too late. As you know from my situation, there are already people in Britain who cannot access GP care.

Oh Ness I know your situation is dire, but most people have a GP, in fact you are the only person I know who doesn't and awful though it is, its not the norm. And I'm not so sure about GP's being private.........are they?? pretty sure mine isn't

tismek wrote on Oct 9, '11

The only problem is babes, its too late. As you know from my situation, there are already people in Britain who cannot access GP care. GPs are NOT NHS. They are private consortia.

We should have done all this back in 2007. Sadly Blair sold us down the river and we sleep-walked into it.

Of course we should try to retain hospitals, but if you are protesting to "save GPs" its too late. They already are private.

Nessie

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 9, '11

bennett1 said

Don't drop your guard.

oh I know.............I did say ..'at present'

bennett1 wrote on Oct 9, '11

.ours seems a little safer at present.

Don't drop your guard.

aaranaardvark wrote on Oct 9, '11

maybe I should point out that the NHS for England and Wales is under different management to the NHS in Scotland...........ours seems a little safer at present.

Only a little

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 9, '11

maybe I should point out that the NHS for England and Wales is under different management to the NHS in Scotland...........ours seems a little safer at present.

aaranaardvark wrote on Oct 9, '11, edited on Oct 9, '11

This government is selling us out to the creeping Americanization that they are employed by the IMF to promote, they are traitors and quislings we must all stand together to defeat and destroy them, this is a national liberation struggle....Cameron and Clegg and Miliband are CIA assets, they have no mandate from the British people, they are the enemy within, we must remove them from office and then remove their sponsors the forces of occupation from our shores.....this is the beginning of the English, Scottish, Welsh Spring....only regime change will do now, nothing less...we are building the Home Front in every city, town and village up and down the land! We will fight to defend our institutions, there can be no retreat from the struggle

bennett1 wrote on Oct 9, '11

I have have those discussions on PM's with friends RIGHT NOW. People, friends of mine, say they have this or that, and I say "For heavens sake see a doctor" and they will say they don't have the money. If you don't have insurance most doctors will NOT accept checks, you have to pay cash up front. And they don't have the $70-100 (£44-64).

I really want to hear what she has to say, I will grab my husband's computer.

forelithe wrote on Oct 9, '11

Every word she said is the truth. A few of years ago There was a National contest here in Canada on who the Greatest Canadian of all time was It was was conducted over several months with half hour programs on TV~ They kept throwing out names of statesmen, the first woman mp, Alexander Graham Bell inspirational figures like Norman Bethune, Terry Fox Rick Hanson. ecological warrior Dr David Suzuki Wayne Gretsky etc. People could vote via internet web site, telephone, email or written letter. It was plain from the very first show and every subsequent show that Canadians, thought a 14 year old Scottish immigrant to our country was the greatest Canadian of all time. His name was Tommy Douglas, Outside of Canada , people who have heard the name know him as Donald Sutherland's father in law, and Kiefer's Grandfather, but he's the man who brought universal health care to Canada. It will have to take something pretty spectacular to de-throne our Tommy. There have been 2 instances in my life where if I hadn't had universal health care I would have lost my home or died. Sure there are waiting lists but need is what enables jumping to the head of the queue not money. Those with deep pockets can go anywhere and pay for care, do you belong to that 1 % ?

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 9, '11

forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 9, '11

its a shame you can't watch..............she is in her 80's and remembers when there was no NHS, she remembers the discussions at home when her parents had to decide if they could afford the cost of seeing a GP. Her brother died in his 90's and the NHS saved his life several times, she has had surgery for cancer twice and several other surgical procedures...........such a shame you can't here what she is saying.