NHS is the world's best healthcare system, report says

[barbos]

Sure, heroin should be legally sold along with cigarettes, that will work great, sure.

 

[bilby]

Sure, heroin should be legally sold along with cigarettes, that will work great, sure.

See, the thing that is missing from this response is the only important bit - the REASON.

Why would selling heroin legally along with cigarettes NOT work?

Just rolling your eyes and implying that it wouldn't doesn't make it so. If it is so obvious to you, perhaps you might like to educate the rest of us? Because it is far from obvious to me.

 

[barbos]

Here is an argument against NHS:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-shocking-new-details-paedophiles-crimes.html

No, that is an argument against the Daily Mail being allowed to masquerade as a newspaper.

Are you disputing this particular report?

 

[bilby]

Here is an argument against NHS:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-shocking-new-details-paedophiles-crimes.html

No, that is an argument against the Daily Mail being allowed to masquerade as a newspaper.

Are you disputing this particular report?

Yes. Absolutely I am.

If the Daily Mail reported that the sun rose this morning, I would hesitate to believe the story without corroboration from at least one reputable source.

 

[barbos]

Indeed, most heroin addicts who die do so because their drug supply is not of consistent strength, and/or because it is cut with toxic or infectious contaminants.

A regulated supply of heroin, of defined dose and purity, would be much safer for addicts. If the price was somewhat lower...

That's actually bad for economy. Th idea behind smoking is that they die younger and don't burden society by being old, so if in the case of heroine they don't die younger then cigarette smoking model does not apply.

 

[Archimedes]

Ok, so when you said it was a mathematical fact, what you meant was it was your subjective opinion?

Yes, from my perspective of mathematically exact and objective observer.

these words... i do not think they mean what you think that mean.

here's an objective mathematical fact:
Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking: around $132.5 - 193 billion, depending in the source you check.
Total tax revenue collected from tobacco in 2011: somewhere in the general vicinity of 17 trillion, for both state and federal combined.

so the objective mathematical fact is that smokers generate what can charitably be described as a metric fuckton more medically dispensable income than they utilize.

US GDP is about 16 trillion dollars per year. I genuinely don't know if you're being sarcastic about the US tobacco tax claim or if you are genuinely claiming that the tax generated from cigarettes is the same as the entire US GDP .

 

[barbos]

How about BBC? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28034427
crap, the guy himself worked there, you can't trust them either.

 

[barbos]

Ok, so when you said it was a mathematical fact, what you meant was it was your subjective opinion?

Yes, from my perspective of mathematically exact and objective observer.

these words... i do not think they mean what you think that mean.

here's an objective mathematical fact:
Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking: around $132.5 - 193 billion, depending in the source you check.
Total tax revenue collected from tobacco in 2011: somewhere in the general vicinity of 17 trillion, for both state and federal combined.

so the objective mathematical fact is that smokers generate what can charitably be described as a metric fuckton more medically dispensable income than they utilize.

US GDP is about 16 trillion dollars per year. I genuinely don't know if you're being sarcastic about the US tobacco tax claim or if you are genuinely claiming that the tax generated from cigarettes is the same as the entire US GDP .

Damn, I missed that

 

[bilby]

How about BBC? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28034427
crap, the guy himself worked there, you can't trust them either.

A bloody site better than the Daily Fail.

I don't see where this is a particular failing of the NHS though; Jimmy Saville was not employed by the NHS, he was just given access to hospitals as a fundraiser and celebrity, and took advantage of his access to commit crimes. Surely you don't mean to suggest that fundraisers and celebrities are not given access to hospitals in the USA?

 

[barbos]

How about BBC? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28034427
crap, the guy himself worked there, you can't trust them either.

A bloody site better than the Daily Fail.

I don't see where this is a particular failing of the NHS though; Jimmy Saville was not employed by the NHS, he was just given access to hospitals as a fundraiser and celebrity, and took advantage of his access to commit crimes. Surely you don't mean to suggest that fundraisers and celebrities are not given access to hospitals in the USA?

I did not say he was employed by the NHS.

The world's best healthcare system allowed that shit to happen

 

[bilby]

How about BBC? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28034427
crap, the guy himself worked there, you can't trust them either.

A bloody site better than the Daily Fail.

I don't see where this is a particular failing of the NHS though; Jimmy Saville was not employed by the NHS, he was just given access to hospitals as a fundraiser and celebrity, and took advantage of his access to commit crimes. Surely you don't mean to suggest that fundraisers and celebrities are not given access to hospitals in the USA?

I did not say he was employed by the NHS.

The world's best healthcare system allowed that shit to happen

Is there any reason to imagine that any other system would not have? Are all US hospitals constantly suspicious of, and maintaining surveillance of, their wealthy benefactors?

If a murderer randomly strikes at a Walmart, is Walmart to blame for not stopping him? Are shoppers at Costco justified in saying 'We told you there was something wrong with Walmart'; or would that be a stupid inference to make?

How are Jimmy Saville's crimes indicative of a problem with the NHS?

 

[Sabine Grant]

How about BBC? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28034427
crap, the guy himself worked there, you can't trust them either.

A bloody site better than the Daily Fail.

I don't see where this is a particular failing of the NHS though; Jimmy Saville was not employed by the NHS, he was just given access to hospitals as a fundraiser and celebrity, and took advantage of his access to commit crimes. Surely you don't mean to suggest that fundraisers and celebrities are not given access to hospitals in the USA?

I did not say he was employed by the NHS.

The world's best healthcare system allowed that shit to happen

Let me ask : which factors do you think are to be taken into account or relevant when it comes to evaluating the performance level of any health care system?

 

[prideandfall]

Ok, so when you said it was a mathematical fact, what you meant was it was your subjective opinion?

Yes, from my perspective of mathematically exact and objective observer.

these words... i do not think they mean what you think that mean.

here's an objective mathematical fact:
Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking: around $132.5 - 193 billion, depending in the source you check.
Total tax revenue collected from tobacco in 2011: somewhere in the general vicinity of 17 trillion, for both state and federal combined.

so the objective mathematical fact is that smokers generate what can charitably be described as a metric fuckton more medically dispensable income than they utilize.

US GDP is about 16 trillion dollars per year. I genuinely don't know if you're being sarcastic about the US tobacco tax claim or if you are genuinely claiming that the tax generated from cigarettes is the same as the entire US GDP .

Damn, I missed that

i did too, apparently - posting late in the day, and i misread how many zeroes were in the chart i was looking at.
it's actually 117 billion according to an aggregate of several web sites, but honestly there are so many sites listing so many wildly different figures for both annual tax revenue from tobacco and annual estimated healthcare costs caused by tobacco, it's difficult to pin down.
anti-smoking sites tend to put revenue at 17 billion and healthcare costs at 130 billion+, tax policy sites put the revenue at 35 - 50 billion and don't list healthcare costs, and some other sites say 100+ billion in revenue and as low at 90 billion in costs, so... /shrug.