|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The first article cites a study and the second article is the independent professional thoughts of an individual doctor. There is, as such, no conflict whatsoever between the two. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the information advanced in the DM articles above. You are simply attacking a source with the implication that the relevant information about the NHS is dubious in some way, using irrlevant material to do so. As if that weren't enough, you've made a completely false claim about the irrelevant material that you've used (that they can't seem to decide whether coffee is good or bad for you). You are an extremely lazy thinker. State-educated, I take it?
The first is based on the pronouncements of dermatologists at the University of Texas. The second cites research by analytical chemist Dr Roger Westerholm at the University of Stockholm. Seems authoritative enough to me.
| Morrisonhotel wrote: |
| The Daily Mail, when it comes to reporting on scientific research, is good for one thing and one thing only: using it to wipe your backside |
By the sounds of it, the same might be said of your undergraduate degree.
Things simultaneously have beneficial and unbeneficial properties. This is not a surprise.
| Morrisonhotel wrote: |
| Contradictory advice, if you have the time to check, that the Daily Mail has been all to willing to propagate |
Even supposing that's actually true - and on the evidence you've given thus far, it most certainly isn't - what relevance would this have regarding the studies cited about the NHS? Are you seriously trying to suggest that, in the light of some "contradictory advice" given about coffee, some different information on a different topic is thereby dubious? Have you ANY idea how little sense you are making and how ridiculous you sound? Are you capable of posting something ontopic? Or are you going to continue to get your little patriotic dander up and attack a newspaper, using the weakest of arguments, when such a newspaper was just one of several sources used?
Last edited by Sergio Stefanuto on Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| According to the Commonwealth Report executive summary -- the data source of the article this thread is about -- the United States per capita spending on health care is $7290. |
If the federal budget for Medicaid is $300bn and covers 53 million Americans, that means its real cost is, depending on how you look at it, either (a) $1,000 per American (federal medicaid budget divided by gross population), or (b) $5,600 per American (federal medicaid budget divided by population insured under medicaid).
If it costs 300 million Americans $1,000 each to deliver healthcare coverage to 53 million people, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence that extending medicaid, essentially, is the way to deliver the highest possible quality healthcare to the greatest possible number of people.
Last edited by Sergio Stefanuto on Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:38 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
morrisonhotel
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
1)You went off-topic first when responding to someone who posted not to use the Mail as sources, thank you very much.
2) I believe personal attacks are a violation of the TOS.
3) Daily Mail scaremongering. Here is a link to a Facebook group with screeds of articles on how the Mail scaremongers about people getting cancer: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=269512464297&ref=nf&v=info#!/group.php?gid=269512464297&v=info&ref=nf I've linked to this site as if I posted the actual links, that would result in a fairly large post.
4) Falsification of evidence as well - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1265277/Cancer-danger-night-time-trip-toilet.html
That was, not in any way, related to the research whatsoever - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/apr/27/dailymail-cancer
The Mail is notorious for publishing anything and everything about possible health scares. I wouldn't trust their journalism as far as I could throw the editor.
5)If I had the time or the inclination to do so, I would document every case of the Mail using contradictory advice. If you'd bother to do some digging yourself via Private Eye which has a whole section dedicated to people printing contradictory advice on Fleet Street then you'd see time and time again examples of the Mail using contradictory research to justify printing any scaremongering, but I'm guessing that doesn't suffice.
As it were, to stop this going further off-topic, I'm out. I'll leave you to dance around proclaiming how terrible Britain is whilst simultaneously going on about how wonderful the Middle East is without me (well, it's only a matter of time before you do). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| morrisonhotel wrote: |
| 1)You went off-topic first when responding to someone who posted not to use the Mail as sources, thank you very much. |
A quite legitimate and ontopic response to a use of ad hominem
Not a single word of which is relevant.
| Morrisonhotel wrote: |
4) Falsification of evidence as well - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1265277/Cancer-danger-night-time-trip-toilet.html
That was, not in any way, related to the research whatsoever - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/apr/27/dailymail-cancer
The Mail is notorious for publishing anything and everything about possible health scares. I wouldn't trust their journalism as far as I could throw the editor.
5)If I had the time or the inclination to do so, I would document every case of the Mail using contradictory advice. If you'd bother to do some digging yourself via Private Eye which has a whole section dedicated to people printing contradictory advice on Fleet Street then you'd see time and time again examples of the Mail using contradictory research to justify printing any scaremongering, but I'm guessing that doesn't suffice. |
No, it doesn't suffice, because it's totally irrelevant. I don't know what part of 'irrelevant' is unclear to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| According to the Commonwealth Report executive summary -- the data source of the article this thread is about -- the United States per capita spending on health care is $7290. |
If the federal budget for Medicaid is $300bn and covers 53 million Americans, that means its real cost is, depending on how you look at it, either (a) $1,000 per American (federal medicaid budget divided by gross population), or (b) $5,600 per American (federal medicaid budget divided by population insured under medicaid).
If it costs 300 million Americans $1,000 each to deliver healthcare coverage to 53 million people, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence that extending medicaid, essentially, is the way to deliver the highest possible quality healthcare to the greatest possible number of people. |
If health care spending per capita in America is ~$7200, but health care spending per capita by Medicaid is only ~$5200, I'm not inclined to look at Medicaid and be shocked at its excessive costs. Rather, I'm inclined to see it as performing more efficiently than much of the rest of the American system.
Yes, $5200 per capita is still too much, but again, that's because the health care system itself is too expensive; nothing Medicaid can do can reduce their costs below what doctors are willing to accept, and private industry can (and should) only be strong-armed so far. So long as Medicaid is performing more efficiently than private insurance, I'm going to have a hard time strongly condemning it. There's a reason these programs have strong support in America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj1976
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio, I take it you're not from England because if you were, you'd know that most right-minded (not right-wing haha) people take it with a large pinch of salt. They are famed for their unashamedly skewed conservative bias and their love of whipping up moral panics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cj1976 wrote: |
| Sergio, I take it you're not from England because if you were, you'd know that most right-minded (not right-wing haha) people take it with a large pinch of salt. They are famed for their unashamedly skewed conservative bias and their love of whipping up moral panics. |
I don't know if he's English but I'm pretty certain he's from somewhere in the UK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj1976
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| cj1976 wrote: |
| Sergio, I take it you're not from England because if you were, you'd know that most right-minded (not right-wing haha) people take it with a large pinch of salt. They are famed for their unashamedly skewed conservative bias and their love of whipping up moral panics. |
I don't know if he's English but I'm pretty certain he's from somewhere in the UK. |
Oops, my bad. Well, he should know better then.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cj1976 wrote: |
| Sergio, I take it you're not from England because if you were, you'd know that most right-minded (not right-wing haha) people take it with a large pinch of salt. |
Yes, I'm from England and an avid Daily Mail-reader
| cj1976 wrote: |
| They are famed for their unashamedly skewed conservative bias and their love of whipping up moral panics. |
That's as may be, but the articles on the NHS I posted cited professional research and there doesn't appear to be anything amiss with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| cj1976 wrote: |
| Sergio, I take it you're not from England because if you were, you'd know that most right-minded (not right-wing haha) people take it with a large pinch of salt. |
Yes, I'm from England and an avid Daily Mail-reader
| cj1976 wrote: |
| They are famed for their unashamedly skewed conservative bias and their love of whipping up moral panics. |
That's as may be, but the articles on the NHS I posted cited professional research and there doesn't appear to be anything amiss with it. |
Dear old Serge, Daily Mail? C'mon man, my elderly mother reads that and even she admits it's full of distorted world-views.
The NHS ain't poifect, but I'll take it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vix
Joined: 18 Jun 2010
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Not to worry guys we have PM Cameron on the case now. I'm sure he will sort it out . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
MRI scans:
| Quote: |
�Having to wait up to a year for a routine MRI scan is not unusual.�
Patients suffering from multiple sclerosis (MS) can expect to wait for at least a year for an MRI scan, despite health service guidelines stating such patients should have diagnostic tests carried out within six weeks of seeing a neurologist.
Mike O�Donovan, chief executive of the MS Society, said: �MS patients typically wait 12 months for a scan, sometimes more. These patients will know something serious is wrong but need to wait a year to find out, which will greatly add to their suffering.�
An audit by the Royal College of Physicians has highlighted dangerous delays in urgent scans for stroke victims. The study found more than 40% of patients were not given the test within 24 hours, the limit specified in college guidelines.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article522731.ece |
Dying of old age is never very nice. Especially in the UK:
| Quote: |
Inherent age discrimination in NHS palliative care services prevents many older people from having a dignified death, research suggests. The University of Sheffield study found terminally ill younger people get much better care than older counterparts. Help the Aged, which commissioned the study, says action is needed to tackle age discrimination. The study found older people are often denied the opportunity to go into a hospice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4575641.stm |
This Guardian article is excellent, as it shows in some detail how absolutely rubbish the NHS is:
Brits will be familar with the BBC program, Panorama. Well, on July 20th 2005, they served up an absolute treat. Check this out:
| Quote: |
Panorama's investigation is a stark portrayal of the indignities faced by elderly people as they reach the end of their days in a major British hospital.
� Patients in excruciating pain from terminal cancer because their pain relief drugs were not being administered properly.
� Patients desperate to use the toilet having to wait for lengthy periods while nurses fail to respond to their calls for help.
� Nurses eating patients' food in the kitchen whilst some patients who were unable to feed themselves went hungry.
� And how patients can die alone and unnoticed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4655929.stm |
Imagine paying National Insurance your whole life and then dying like this in an NHS hospital. . .
Perhaps that explains this:
17% for private medical insurance seems quite high in a country where, in theory, everybody is covered by the NHS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
MRI scans:
| Quote: |
�Having to wait up to a year for a routine MRI scan is not unusual.�
Patients suffering from multiple sclerosis (MS) can expect to wait for at least a year for an MRI scan, despite health service guidelines stating such patients should have diagnostic tests carried out within six weeks of seeing a neurologist.
Mike O�Donovan, chief executive of the MS Society, said: �MS patients typically wait 12 months for a scan, sometimes more. These patients will know something serious is wrong but need to wait a year to find out, which will greatly add to their suffering.�
An audit by the Royal College of Physicians has highlighted dangerous delays in urgent scans for stroke victims. The study found more than 40% of patients were not given the test within 24 hours, the limit specified in college guidelines.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article522731.ece |
Dying of old age is never very nice. Especially in the UK:
| Quote: |
Inherent age discrimination in NHS palliative care services prevents many older people from having a dignified death, research suggests. The University of Sheffield study found terminally ill younger people get much better care than older counterparts. Help the Aged, which commissioned the study, says action is needed to tackle age discrimination. The study found older people are often denied the opportunity to go into a hospice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4575641.stm |
This Guardian article is excellent, as it shows in some detail how absolutely rubbish the NHS is:
Brits will be familar with the BBC program, Panorama. Well, on July 20th 2005, they served up an absolute treat. Check this out:
| Quote: |
Panorama's investigation is a stark portrayal of the indignities faced by elderly people as they reach the end of their days in a major British hospital.
� Patients in excruciating pain from terminal cancer because their pain relief drugs were not being administered properly.
� Patients desperate to use the toilet having to wait for lengthy periods while nurses fail to respond to their calls for help.
� Nurses eating patients' food in the kitchen whilst some patients who were unable to feed themselves went hungry.
� And how patients can die alone and unnoticed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4655929.stm |
Imagine paying National Insurance your whole life and then dying like this in an NHS hospital. . .
Perhaps that explains this:
17% for private medical insurance seems quite high in a country where, in theory, everybody is covered by the NHS. |
People who can afford private medical insurance probably should take it, in my opinion. It relieves some of the pressure on NHS resources, dear old Serge. This doesn't negate the need for some sort of universal system as well. Let's not forget that before the NHS the same people who buy private now were probably also the types of who could have afforded healthcare anyway, NHS or not. The point of the NHS was to help those who otherwise can't afford healthcare.
I'm not even pretending that the NHS necessarily provides better care than those who pay to go to private health centres, but what I am saying is that on balance for those who can't afford healthcare, the NHS is way better than the alternative of letting these people suffer in at home with no care at all, or with care whose cost nigh on bankrupts the sick individual. Maybe there is a better system than top-down control, but some sort of universal health system I think is a good in itself, markets etc be damned.
You don't need to quote me all these articles and examples, I know them well enough. So these examples negate all the good that has been/is done? I simply disagree, dear old Serge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
MRI scans:
| Quote: |
�Having to wait up to a year for a routine MRI scan is not unusual.�
Patients suffering from multiple sclerosis (MS) can expect to wait for at least a year for an MRI scan, despite health service guidelines stating such patients should have diagnostic tests carried out within six weeks of seeing a neurologist.
Mike O�Donovan, chief executive of the MS Society, said: �MS patients typically wait 12 months for a scan, sometimes more. These patients will know something serious is wrong but need to wait a year to find out, which will greatly add to their suffering.�
An audit by the Royal College of Physicians has highlighted dangerous delays in urgent scans for stroke victims. The study found more than 40% of patients were not given the test within 24 hours, the limit specified in college guidelines.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article522731.ece |
Dying of old age is never very nice. Especially in the UK:
| Quote: |
Inherent age discrimination in NHS palliative care services prevents many older people from having a dignified death, research suggests. The University of Sheffield study found terminally ill younger people get much better care than older counterparts. Help the Aged, which commissioned the study, says action is needed to tackle age discrimination. The study found older people are often denied the opportunity to go into a hospice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4575641.stm |
This Guardian article is excellent, as it shows in some detail how absolutely rubbish the NHS is:
Brits will be familar with the BBC program, Panorama. Well, on July 20th 2005, they served up an absolute treat. Check this out:
| Quote: |
Panorama's investigation is a stark portrayal of the indignities faced by elderly people as they reach the end of their days in a major British hospital.
� Patients in excruciating pain from terminal cancer because their pain relief drugs were not being administered properly.
� Patients desperate to use the toilet having to wait for lengthy periods while nurses fail to respond to their calls for help.
� Nurses eating patients' food in the kitchen whilst some patients who were unable to feed themselves went hungry.
� And how patients can die alone and unnoticed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4655929.stm |
Imagine paying National Insurance your whole life and then dying like this in an NHS hospital. . .
Perhaps that explains this:
17% for private medical insurance seems quite high in a country where, in theory, everybody is covered by the NHS. |
People who can afford private medical insurance probably should take it, in my opinion. It relieves some of the pressure on NHS resources, dear old Serge. This doesn't negate the need for some sort of universal system as well. Let's not forget that before the NHS the same people who buy private now were probably also the types of who could have afforded healthcare anyway, NHS or not. The point of the NHS was to help those who otherwise can't afford healthcare.
I'm not even pretending that the NHS necessarily provides better care than those who pay to go to private health centres, but what I am saying is that on balance for those who can't afford healthcare, the NHS is way better than the alternative of letting these people suffer in at home with no care at all, or with care whose cost nigh on bankrupts the sick individual. Maybe there is a better system than top-down control, but some sort of universal health system I think is a good in itself, markets etc be damned.
You don't need to quote me all these articles and examples, I know them well enough. So these examples negate all the good that has been/is done? I simply disagree, dear old Serge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mariella713
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No public service is ever perfect. The NHS doesn't look too bad when compared to health provision in other developed countries. Interestingly, two OECD figures that I've seen before show the UK has greater life exectancy and lower infant morality than the US. The NHS could definately do with inprovements though, no doubt about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
