Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-11-2018, 09:52 AM
JackieLikesVariety JackieLikesVariety is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,554
yes, it's a good thread except for the giant hijack of an American* butting in with numbers he has googled.

Quote:
If you're poor you get government care.
cite?




*Muricansplaining?

Last edited by JackieLikesVariety; 02-11-2018 at 09:53 AM.
  #102  
Old 02-11-2018, 10:07 AM
glee glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 15,073
Trump lies about the NHS

Since the OP just wanted my thoughts I'll try to keep it simple (although an occasional disgust at Trump's appalling untruths will emerge!)

The NHS is excellent and popular (with all UK political parties supporting it.)

My elderly parents had a number of ailments (Parkinson's disease, high blood pressure, macular degeneration) which were all treated promptly by the NHS and with no charge at the time.
When my mother was diagnosed with a life-threatening condition (by her doctor visiting her at home) an ambulance was called and arrived in 20 minutes. They kindly let me ride with Mum to hospital. Of course this was covered by the NHS. (N.B. I can't believe that US citizens have to pay for an ambulance ride, but there you are.)

I had a bowel cancer scare recently (thankfully negative.) I had a series of tests at hospitals (which did not involve any delays.) I was very impressed by the professional and sympathetic treatment I received.

I also have an NHS dentist and NHS optician.
I shudder to think what an uninsured US citizen would have to pay for what I get.

P.S. The subject of private health insurance alongside the NHS has been raised. In my case, my employer offered it free (which I think covers a lot of UK citizens who have it.)
__________________
Arnold Winkelried:
'glee, I take my hat off to you.... at first I thought you were kidding with your cite but I looked it up and it was indeed accurate. (Still in awe at the magnificent answer)'
  #103  
Old 02-11-2018, 10:29 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by glee View Post
The NHS is excellent and popular (with all UK political parties supporting it.)
Not only that, but both Labour and the Conservatives had the NHS in their 1945 manifestos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1945 Conservative manifesto
HEALTH
The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.
  #104  
Old 02-11-2018, 11:59 AM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,746
I think you'll find the people overwhelmingly wanted the NHS and to oppose it would have been election suicide.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe
  #105  
Old 02-11-2018, 12:40 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety View Post
yes, it's a good thread except for the giant hijack of an American* butting in with numbers he has googled.
The numbers "googled" were straight from NHS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety View Post
cite?
For the poor we have Medicaid

The US has the same components as the UK system. Both have a tax based government health system and both have a private insurance component. The same benefits and problems exist within each component.

Both systems involve some kind of financial oversight. That oversight directs the availability of care. In other words, there's a budget that goes along with the money collected. The availability of care dictates a broad mix of components such as primary care, hospital bed space, number of trained personnel, and diagnostic equipment. And again, all that has to fit within a budget.

Availability is measured in time, and success rates. Time is measured at each level of medical service. If you are delayed a week at your doctor, or a diagnostic test, or specialist, or surgeon then that all adds up. Any or all of those can be a choke point. It's subjective to measure the failure rate based on delays but there cannot be disagreement that delays increase health risks. It all comes down efficiency and how much money is available.

Success rates are harder to measure (IMO) because each case is unique. It takes more than a handful when comparing numbers. But here is an article that says NHS death rates are 4 times higher than in the US..

The most seriously ill NHS patients were seven times more likely to die than their American counterparts.

Experts blame the British fatality figures on a shortage of specialists and lack of intensive care beds for post-operative recovery.


The article then went on to mention what I've been talking about, delay time.

They also suggest that long waiting lists mean diseases are more advanced before they are treated.

In my own example I wasn't in any obvious danger. My leg hurt. It stopped hurting if I didn't walk on it. There was no outward sign of anything major. But if I took a day delay in ANY of the 10 medical events leading up to surgery then severe damage would have occurred. I would have had the same medical care available to me in the UK, but I seriously doubt I would have gotten it in the same time frame. I don't know what the medical tax rate is in the UK but I'm sure I pay more.

How you measure the success of any healthcare system is always going to generate a great deal of discussion. If the private health care available in the UK consists of additional medical care separate from the national system then you have the best of both worlds. The lowered waiting time is paid for out of pocket and the individual has more control over their health care.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 02-11-2018 at 12:42 PM.
  #106  
Old 02-11-2018, 01:45 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
It takes more than a handful when comparing numbers. But here is an article that says NHS death rates are 4 times higher than in the US..
[I]
The most seriously ill NHS patients were seven times more likely to die than their American counterparts.
Note three things: firstly that cite only concerns those in need of major surgery. Second, it excludes UK patients in private healthcare. And third, it only includes those American patients in healthcare.

Did you only read the title?
  #107  
Old 02-11-2018, 03:04 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
But here is an article that says NHS death rates are 4 times higher than in the US..
...would you stop randomly googling for cites? Most of what you will find on the internet will lack context. Like the cite you've just found.

The cite you've grabbed off the internet is problematic. The first problem is the date. Did you notice there is no date on the article? That information is from 2003. It is old information. The Daily Mail article is virtually identical to the Telegraph article but they have different authors. We can't tell what information was taken from the study and what information is editorial comment. Since the study has been out for fifteen years now, would you care to provide us with a direct link?

It compared information from only two hospitals: Mount Sinai Hospital, Manhattan, Queen Alexandra Hospital, in Portsmouth. Mount Sinai is consistently ranked one of the best hospitals in America. Queen Alexandra seems to be a pretty bog-standard hospital. Why did the study decide to compare these two hospitals? Do you think its a fair comparison? If you were to compare Mount Sinai with a hospital in the United States that wasn't "consistently ranked as one of the best hospitals in America" how do you think the second hospital would rate?

You don't have to be a statistician to be able to be able to know that you can't extrapolate the data from a single hospital (especially one of the best hospitals in the world) and apply that to the entirety of the United States. And then use that data to compare it to a (relatively normal) hospital in the United Kingdom, and then extrapolate that data to make it representative of both countries. There is something wrong here. And I suspect that there isn't anything wrong with the studies: the problem is the way the data that was gathered was portrayed by the Mail.

The Daily Mail, if you didn't know, is regarded as such an unreliable paper that it has been banned by wikipedia as a resource. They regularly post articles opposing the NHS. That you've managed to find one from 2003 that attacks the NHS is not a surprise.
  #108  
Old 02-11-2018, 05:05 PM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,746
Magiver, you're basically doing a good impression of King Canute here. You're arguing with people who have lived their entire lives with universal healthcare, who have lived every nuance, every change, every proposal through the decades of their lives. They don't need 15-year old articles to explain what they have lived through.

If it helps any, here's a video of an American woman who describes her NHS journey, from thinking of it as a nice perk to pretty much part of her identity - maybe ignore the first 30 seconds. This is what you're arguing against: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSsKVlte1w8
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe

Last edited by up_the_junction; 02-11-2018 at 05:09 PM.
  #109  
Old 02-11-2018, 05:38 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...would you stop randomly googling for cites? Most of what you will find on the internet will lack context. Like the cite you've just found.

The Daily Mail, if you didn't know, is regarded as such an unreliable paper that it has been banned by wikipedia as a resource. They regularly post articles opposing the NHS. That you've managed to find one from 2003 that attacks the NHS is not a surprise.
The Daily Mail didn't conduct the study. It was from a report that Channel 4 disclosed in an interview. That would be the BBC. Here's a video of the interview.

The NHS was forced to respond to the article since it was written by Sir Brian Jarman. He was Professor of Primary Health Care from 1983−98 at Imperial College School of Medicine and President of the British Medical Association from 2003−4.

The NHS did it's best to soft spin it but their response to the study ended with this:
Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, told Channel 4 News that the new data will be taken seriously.

He says that he wants the English medical system to be based on evidence and such data should not be disregarded simply because it is inconvenient or embarrassing.



This is what the NHS says is in Sir Brian's report:

Professor Jarman notes in his report that compared with several of the other countries examined, England has:
  • poorer cancer survival
  • longer waiting lists
  • lower patient input, with only a small proportion of hospital complaints formally investigated
  • lower GP out-of-hours on-call service
  • lower rates of services, including lower use of diagnostic procedures such as MRI, heart surgery, and lower immunisation rates
  • a lower number of doctors per bed and per 1,000 population
  • a lower number of acute beds per 1,000 population
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #110  
Old 02-11-2018, 05:52 PM
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
It was from a report that Channel 4 disclosed in an interview. That would be the BBC.
Channel 4 is not the BBC.

And I'm not going to engage on your other gotcha "points". My mother's recent end-of-life care was exemplary, not just easing my mum in her final days, but the rest of our family too.

Last edited by Baron Greenback; 02-11-2018 at 05:55 PM.
  #111  
Old 02-11-2018, 05:58 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by up_the_junction View Post
Magiver, you're basically doing a good impression of King Canute here. You're arguing with people who have lived their entire lives with universal healthcare, who have lived every nuance, every change, every proposal through the decades of their lives. They don't need 15-year old articles to explain what they have lived through.
A handful of people do not better represent the data provided by their own health care system. I backed it up with a study from a professor with the specific credentials to make the study.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #112  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:03 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The Daily Mail didn't conduct the study.
...I never claimed the Daily Mail conducted the study.

Quote:
It was from a report that Channel 4 disclosed in an interview. That would be the BBC. Here's a video of the interview.
Do you understand the difference between Channel 4 and the BBC? Did Channel 4 have a TARDIS? The report that was disclosed in this interview in 2013 was used by the Daily Mail in 2003?

I suspect you are confused. You understand none of the context, none of the nuance.

Quote:
The NHS was forced to respond to the article since it was written by Sir Brian Jarman. He was Professor of Primary Health Care from 1983−98 at Imperial College School of Medicine and President of the British Medical Association from 2003−4.
They were forced to respond? Because of Jarman's qualifications? Really?

Quote:
The NHS did it's best to soft spin it but their response to the study ended with this:
Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, told Channel 4 News that the new data will be taken seriously.
Why would they not take "new data" seriously? Even data that is in their words "no further methodology has been provided for England or other countries, so we can't say whether the methods used to collect data on HSMRs over the past 10 years were appropriate." Data that hasn't been peer-reviewed.

Quote:
He says that he wants the English medical system to be based on evidence and such data should not be disregarded simply because it is inconvenient or embarrassing.
Well isn't it good that you cited the NHS saying that they would take the new data seriously then! They did exactly as he asked. The original cite was from 2003. Your current cite is from 2013. Its 2018 now. How about you tell us how this story ended?

Quote:
This is what the NHS says is in Sir Brian's report:

Professor Jarman notes in his report that compared with several of the other countries examined, England has:
  • poorer cancer survival
  • longer waiting lists
  • lower patient input, with only a small proportion of hospital complaints formally investigated
  • lower GP out-of-hours on-call service
  • lower rates of services, including lower use of diagnostic procedures such as MRI, heart surgery, and lower immunisation rates
  • a lower number of doctors per bed and per 1,000 population
  • a lower number of acute beds per 1,000 population
Yes: the NHS summarised Jarman's report. They however do not endorse the report. They can't even verify his figures or his methodology.

You've started with a conclusion and now you are furiously googling to back up your confusion.

How about you start with an open mind?

Here is a critique on Jarman's work. I would implore you to read it.

http://shibleyrahman.com/nhs/war-jarmans-data/
  #113  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:05 PM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
A handful of people do not better represent the data provided by their own health care system. I backed it up with a study from a professor with the specific credentials to make the study.

Oh okay, despite having lived with this system for generations we don't know what we're talking about, but the non-Brit with a 2003 google does
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe

Last edited by up_the_junction; 02-11-2018 at 06:06 PM.
  #114  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:06 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
A handful of people do not better represent the data provided by their own health care system.
...where is the data? Why are you citing youtube videos?

Jarman isn't part of the "healthcare system." I think you need to do a better job of understanding your cites.

Quote:
I backed it up with a study from a professor with the specific credentials to make the study.
Anyone with "credentials" can make a study using information that they keep "confidential" and that they don't make available for peer review.
  #115  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:12 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Channel 4 is not the BBC.

And I'm not going to engage on your other gotcha "points". My mother's recent end-of-life care was exemplary, not just easing my mum in her final days, but the rest of our family too.
that's great they received good care. It really and truly is. I'm sorry to hear of your loss. I lost both of my parents to cancer.

It doesn't change the data I pulled from the NHS or the report from a professor in the field of Primary Healthcare.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #116  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:17 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by up_the_junction View Post
Oh okay, despite having lived with this system for generations we don't know what we're talking about, but the non-Brit with a 2003 google does
I would think a study by a Professor of Primary Health Care and past President of the British Medical Association holds more weight than your opinion as well as the delays posted by your own medical provider.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #117  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:26 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I would think a study by a Professor of Primary Health Care and past President of the British Medical Association holds more weight than your opinion as well as the delays posted by your own medical provider.
...this is merely an appeal to authority. The "report" is problematic. It relied on confidential sources, it hasn't been peer reviewed, the results haven't been duplicated.

As a point of comparison: Richard Gage is a San Francisco Bay Area architect of 28 years, a member of the American Institute of Architects. Do you think a study produced by him into the structural integrity of a building would hold more weight than my own opinion, where I admit I have no experience designing or constructing buildings? Would you be more likely to accept his findings or mine?
  #118  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:46 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I would think a study by a Professor of Primary Health Care and past President of the British Medical Association holds more weight than your opinion as well as the delays posted by your own medical provider.

Except that as I previously pointed out, the comparison is exceedingly limited in scope. For instance, how many Americans die because they can't afford the treatment, or die because they didn't go to the doctor in the first place? Likewise, how many Britons avoided the need for surgery because the condition they had was caught early on and treated and cured before surgery became necessary? You can't just take these figures in isolation.
  #119  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:47 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
How about you start with an open mind?
I started with the statistics from NHS. Not from the US, or Canada or any other country. They're direct from the UK's medical provider. I backed it with someone with the qualifications to do so.

I'm not sure why thee's all the angst about the numbers the NHS posts.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #120  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:49 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Except that as I previously pointed out, the comparison is exceedingly limited in scope. For instance, how many Americans die because they can't afford the treatment, or die because they didn't go to the doctor in the first place? Likewise, how many Britons avoided the need for surgery because the condition they had was caught early on and treated and cured before surgery became necessary? You can't just take these figures in isolation.
As I already posted, we have socialized care for the poor. There isn't a separate hospital for tax funded surgery.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #121  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:57 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...this is merely an appeal to authority. The "report" is problematic. It relied on confidential sources, it hasn't been peer reviewed, the results haven't been duplicated.

As a point of comparison: Richard Gage is a San Francisco Bay Area architect of 28 years, a member of the American Institute of Architects. Do you think a study produced by him into the structural integrity of a building would hold more weight than my own opinion, where I admit I have no experience designing or constructing buildings? Would you be more likely to accept his findings or mine?
You haven't produced anything to contradict the report or provide any information beyond "nuh uh". You've dismissed the report as "problematic You haven't even attempted to address the NHS data on delays. So yes, I would take the data from NHS and a report from someone who is a Professor of Primary Health Care over your opinion.

Again, why are you even arguing this when the NHS shows the delays.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #122  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:59 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I started with the statistics from NHS.
...why did you choose to look at those particular statistics? (and can you refresh my mind: what exact statistics are you talking about?)

How did you find those statistics? What combination of words did you use to when you went to search for those stats? Why did you start with these statistics, and not others?

Quote:
Not from the US, or Canada or any other country. They're direct from the UK's medical provider.
So what? I've asked you to start with an open mind. I think its clear you've started with assumptions and are retroactively finding evidence to confirm your assumptions. That you've used figures only from the UK is logical as the OP specifically asked that this thread be about the UK. (That you've consistently ignored the OP is beside the point. But that doesn't show that you've got an open mind on the topic.

Quote:
I backed it with someone with the qualifications to do so.
Appeal to authority again. We can't see all his figures. He's keeping them secret. They aren't peer reviewed. Its 2018. Five years after the channel 4 report. When the NHS looked into it, what did they find? Have Jarman's figures been independently verified?

Quote:
I'm not sure why thee's all the angst about the numbers the NHS posts.
There is no "angst" over the numbers the NHS posts. There is "angst" over how your are interpreting the numbers. You are cherry picking.
  #123  
Old 02-11-2018, 07:04 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
As I already posted, we have socialized care for the poor. There isn't a separate hospital for tax funded surgery.
But you don't have socialised healthcare for the low and middle incomes.
__________________
Quartz
  #124  
Old 02-11-2018, 07:09 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
But you don't have socialised healthcare for the low and middle incomes.
we have it for the poor and the elderly. two different programs. Everybody else pays it out of pocket or through their employer versus paying it through their taxes. We also have it for veterans and if you've read the news there was a big scandal there because of delays involved.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #125  
Old 02-11-2018, 07:11 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,371
Here's another statistic for you: Americans declaring bankruptcy due to medical bills: approx 643,000 annually. Britons declaring bankruptcy due to medical bills: nil.
__________________
Quartz
  #126  
Old 02-11-2018, 07:12 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
We also have it for veterans and if you've read the news there was a big scandal there because of delays involved.
As I understand it, veterans care in the US is limited to conditions suffered while in service.
  #127  
Old 02-11-2018, 07:18 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
we have it for the poor and the elderly. two different programs. Everybody else pays it out of pocket or through their employer versus paying it through their taxes.
So you admit you have nothing for those who need it most: the younger workers, the tradesmen, the self-employed, etc. Having UHC allows Britos to take care of issues before they become serious and thus keeps them contributing to the Exchequer via taxes. I'll note that the UK spends half (as a percentage of GDP) what the US does. UHC saves money.
  #128  
Old 02-11-2018, 07:19 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
You haven't produced anything to contradict the report or provide any information beyond "nuh uh".
...I don't need to produce anything. You cited the NHS response to the report. I've quoted from the NHS response. To characterize my posts as "nuh uh" is disingenuous. I've done much more than that.

Quote:
You've dismissed the report as "problematic
Yep.

Quote:
You haven't even attempted to address the NHS data on delays.
Whats to address?

You've claimed the average wait time for average wait was 7.4 weeks for Cardiothoracic Surgery. (you didn't link directly to that data by the way, just to a whole lot of links, and I'm not going to hunt around to confirm what you say. I'm going to assume the figures are correct for the purpose of debate, but I haven't verified them) Is that an unreasonable delay? You haven't made an argument that it is. If the surgery was urgent, then it would get put to the front of the queue regardless of ability to pay.

So what is it you want me to address? Would it be nicer if it was quicker? Probably. Is it preferable to have a delay like this and ensure everybody has access to the same surgery without having to pay at point of service? In my humble opinion yes it is.

Would I prefer to move to a system where either having money in the bank or if I pay expensive insurance on top of the taxes I pay (meaning you pay at least twice as much) you get moved to the front of the queue, but if I don't have money in the bank you just get my leg chopped off? No I wouldn't.

Do you consider your question addressed?

Quote:
So yes, I would take the data from NHS and a report from someone who is a Professor of Primary Health Care over your opinion.
Another appeal to authority?

Data from the NHS is meaningless without context. A report from a Professor of Primary Health Care without any data and without peer review really isn't a report worth bothering with.

Show me the data.

Quote:
Again, why are you even arguing this when the NHS shows the delays.
Because "delay" is a relative term.
  #129  
Old 02-11-2018, 07:43 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
.
Appeal to authority again. We can't see all his figures. He's keeping them secret. They aren't peer reviewed. Its 2018. Five years after the channel 4 report. When the NHS looked into it, what did they find? Have Jarman's figures been independently verified?
You're the one dismissing them. It's on you to back up your claims they're not valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
.
There is no "angst" over the numbers the NHS posts. There is "angst" over how your are interpreting the numbers. You are cherry picking.
I picked something that directly related to me for comparison. I also randomly picked a few to look at to see if this was an anomaly and they all had delays. If you think that's cherry picking then pick any aspect of health care that NHS keeps numbers on and we'll just have a look. Pick a bunch of them if you like.

You can start with the cancellation of operations because of a lack of beds due to the flu. from the BBC.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #130  
Old 02-11-2018, 08:03 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
You're the one dismissing them. It's on you to back up your claims they're not valid.
...I've backed up my claims. Can I suggest you go re-read my posts? Did you read the critique I linked too? Did you actually read the NHS response that you cited? Why should we trust data that we can't see? Why should we trust data that hasn't been peer reviewed?

Quote:
I picked something that directly related to me for comparison.
Yet you've ignored me when I directly challenged your basis for comparison.

Quote:
I also randomly picked a few to look at to see if this was an anomaly and they all had delays.
"Randomly picking a few things" is a very poor statistical technique. And "delay" is a relative term. Everything is delayed. So of course everything you looked at had delays. The UK system keeps very good track of statistics. They can track delays. Is this something that is consistent across America? Is there a single authority that will produce consistent metrics from state-to-state?

Quote:
If you think that's cherry picking then pick any aspect of health care that NHS keeps numbers on and we'll just have a look. Pick a bunch of them if you like.
Delay is a relative term. What are you comparing it too? How are you determining a delay is too long?

Quote:
You can start with the cancellation of operations because of a lack of beds due to the flu. from the BBC.
Its nice of you to finally catch up. A cite from 2018! Well done you!

You've found a cite that echos everything that all the UK dopers have been telling you throughout the thread.

So why do you want me to "start here"? Is this a temporary emergency? The article is a month old now...are they still delaying non-urgent operations? Do you think delaying non-urgent operations was the incorrect thing to do? Do you think that you should be able to pay more and get to the front of the line?

How does this relate to an article that you plucked from google dated 2003? How does this relate to the data from Jarman that he won't release?
  #131  
Old 02-12-2018, 03:41 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
we have it for the poor and the elderly. two different programs. Everybody else pays it out of pocket or through their employer versus paying it through their taxes.
No, at least have the decency to admit you are 100% wrong on this. You fund healthcare from your taxes. Everyone who is a taxpayer also pays for the government schemes as well as the extra amount you have to pay because those schemes don't cover you.
Here's the kicker, you pay more in tax per capita just for those government schemes that you can't access than an average tax-paying, health-insured UK person.

And as you are fond of authoritative sources, here's a more recent review. Have a read. In there you will find good news and problems, i.e. exactly what we've being telling you.

But........and please let this sink in........this is the system that is the very base level care delivered to every member of society. The one that everyone can access regardless of income and is based on medical necessity not ability to pay or insurance company decisions.

That's the comparison to make. What is the base level of care available to everyone in the USA? what are those systems like? what do they cover? what are those waiting lists like? what bills are you left with? (which isn't even a concept in the UK). From that same link above here's further reading on how the USA stacks up more specifically. If you want the raw data behind that one you can just ask the publishers.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way

Last edited by Novelty Bobble; 02-12-2018 at 03:42 AM.
  #132  
Old 02-12-2018, 04:36 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,115
Congratulations to Magiver for continuing to ignore the OPs request:

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
What I'm wanting in this thread is input from UK 'dopers...what do you think of your system? What I DON'T want (though I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears) is the standard comparison to the US mainly from US 'dopers pining for that sweet, sweet NHS here in the states. Please...PLEASE...don't mention the US in this thread, don't compare it to our system, don't tell me how much better it is. I don't even want it compared to other EU systems. What I want is...how do you like it? What do you like about it? What do you wish it improved on or what do you think needs to be fixed and what do you think should be done to do so. Or, do you think it's basically a good solid system already and maybe only needs a few tweaks here or there to make it perfect?
I mean, you could have started your own thread if you really wanted to completely pursue a tangent, but hey ho.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publ...mparisons-2017

"Key findings: The U.S. ranked last on performance overall, and ranked last or near last on the Access, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Health Care Outcomes domains. The top-ranked countries overall were the U.K., Australia, and the Netherlands. Based on a broad range of indicators, the U.S. health system is an outlier, spending far more but falling short of the performance achieved by other high-income countries. The results suggest the U.S. health care system should look at other countries’ approaches if it wants to achieve an affordable high-performing health care system that serves all Americans. "

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...-by-perception

US places 16th, UK places 4th

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...ystems_in_2000

Where the WHO rates the US system in 37th place, the NHS 18th.

I'm really not sure how many times we can repeat the same chorus. Yes there's room for improvement. Yes there are a number of challenges threatening the system. And yet it still outstrips the US system by an extent that is almost comical. You pay twice as much, but your life expectancy is lower. Infant mortality rates are shocking for what is probably the most technically advanced nation on the world. And god help you if you happen to be poor, because frankly you're screwed.
  #133  
Old 02-12-2018, 08:14 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Please stop for a moment and listen to what I'm telling you. I posted your own statistics directly from NHS. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
It's not my dogma and I didn't make up the numbers. I posted the official NHS numbers about delays in the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I started with the statistics from NHS. Not from the US, or Canada or any other country. They're direct from the UK's medical provider. I backed it with someone with the qualifications to do so.

I'm not sure why thee's all the angst about the numbers the NHS posts.
Because you've misinterpreted those numbers and then used that misinterpretation to extrapolate a highly speculative conclusion directly contradicted by the experience of every single actual user of the NHS here. That's why.

But please keep repeating "But her emails But the NHS numbers...!" as if that will add any legitimacy to your argument.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #134  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:05 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post

And as you are fond of authoritative sources, here's a more recent review. Have a read. In there you will find good news and problems, i.e. exactly what we've being telling you.
did you even read through the cite? It conveniently left the US out. I grabbed 2 major diagnostic tools for comparison:

MRI'S per million
UK - 6.1
US - 36.7

CT Scanners per million
UK - 8
US - 41.9

The NHS CT median time is a little over 1 day but the MRI median delay is 20 days.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #135  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:13 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
But please keep repeating "But her emails But the NHS numbers...!" as if that will add any legitimacy to your argument.
There isn't anything to misinterpret. median times of service are delays in diagnosis. There is no spin you can put on that.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 02-12-2018 at 09:13 PM.
  #136  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:23 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
did you even read through the cite? It conveniently left the US out.
...this thread isn't supposed to be about the US at all.

Quote:
I grabbed 2 major diagnostic tools for comparison:

MRI'S per million
UK - 6.1
US - 36.7

CT Scanners per million
UK - 8
US - 41.9
As I put it in another thread in a discussion with Bricker:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...these are not "good metrics." What are you measuring?

Lets put two hospitals side-by-side. Everything is identical, but the hospital on the left has 3 MRI scanners and the hospital on the right has 4 MRI scanners.

Does the hospital on the right have objectively better metrics than the hospital on the left?

Lets bring the analogy closer to your Canada example. The hospital on the right now has 6 MRI scanners. Twice as many as the hospital on the left. How much more objectively better is the hospital on the right now?

Lets bring it to the UK. The hospital on the left has 3 MRI scanners. The hospital on the right now has 10. Is the hospital on the right objectively better?

Now what if I were to tell you that from a medical standpoint, the optimal amount of MRI scanners per hospital to deliver satisfactory outcomes was 1 MRI scanner. Which hospital is doing it better, the one on the left, the one on the right, or the one right behind me that only has one MRI scanner?

America has nearly 3 times the MRI scanners than we have in New Zealand. The first morning I was in hospital (mentioned earlier in the thread) I was scheduled for an MRI. I got wheeled into the MRI waiting room that afternoon. I had maybe a ten minute wait before they wheeled me in. Was my experience objectively worse than what I would have experienced if I were in America?

Without further context your metric is meaningless. I would argue the hospital on the right with 10 MRI scanners is worse off: because it has invested millions of dollars in pointless MRI scanners when that money could have been better deployed somewhere else.

Quote:
The NHS CT median time is a little over 1 day but the MRI median delay is 20 days.
And?
  #137  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:44 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
did you even read through the cite? It conveniently left the US out. I grabbed 2 major diagnostic tools for comparison:
You clearly haven't read it have you? other than to cherry pick to two stats that you think support your point (whatever it is) and if you are going to quote those points then you might to also quote the part in the article that they thought important enough to place at the start.

Quote:
Although comparing different countries’ health systems is fraught with difficulties (such as differences in how data is collected and in the local context) and should not be over-interpreted, comparisons do provide an important perspective on what the NHS does well and where it should seek to improve.
And the USA is not left out, the very first link in that cite takes to you a very critical appraisal of the US system - why, I wonder, did you not draw attention to that?

very first paragraph in that appraisal

Quote:
The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 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 or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #138  
Old 02-13-2018, 04:02 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
There isn't anything to misinterpret. median times of service are delays in diagnosis. There is no spin you can put on that.
...unlike the spin you just put on it.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, this isn't just a "each person goes to the back of the queue" system; there is a triage (which is already a diagnosis). Not every MRI is urgent, yet you're treating them all equally, factoring in the waiting times for non-urgent scans with the ones for urgent ones and pretending the average is representative of the wait for urgent scans. It isn't, and please stop implying that it is.

And sure, there is always the possibility that an MRI will sometimes reveal something hitherto unsuspected - but then you're arguing about the rare exceptions, not the system.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #139  
Old 02-13-2018, 07:52 AM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 972
Its something I wanted to mention earlier, but skipped because the OP didn't want to bring the US into it. But since that seems to have gone well and truly out the window: For a minority of Americans, if treatment is not prioritized by ability to pay, they can't comprehend any other way to prioritize it. There must be queues where everyone has their place in line regardless of diagnosis and urgency. Prioritizing people by medical need is a concept that seems to alien too understand.

Also, since triage is both in the discussion and in the news.
  #140  
Old 02-13-2018, 08:27 AM
elbows elbows is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 13,414
But how is that possible when they face/accept triage in every emergency room in America?
  #141  
Old 02-13-2018, 08:39 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Its something I wanted to mention earlier, but skipped because the OP didn't want to bring the US into it. But since that seems to have gone well and truly out the window: For a minority of Americans, if treatment is not prioritized by ability to pay, they can't comprehend any other way to prioritize it. There must be queues where everyone has their place in line regardless of diagnosis and urgency. Prioritizing people by medical need is a concept that seems to alien too understand.

Also, since triage is both in the discussion and in the news.
Naw, feel free. I basically got the answers I was looking for in the earlier discussion, so at this point knock yourselves out talking about whatever you guys want, including comparisons to the US system or any other system out there. I simply didn't want the discussion to get sidetracked as it did later on until our British 'dopers got the chance to actually answer the questions and give their thoughts.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #142  
Old 02-13-2018, 08:51 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 38,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
But how is that possible when they face/accept triage in every emergency room in America?
A lot of them have never been to the ER, and don't think of it. Others have been but didn't see any kind of triage: it took place, but they didn't see it. I've been to the ER accompanying patients in the US and in Spain; in the US we were given a lot less information regarding waiting times, reasons for anything or even what was the patient being given. Just anecdata, but think that people in the US are used to getting Rxs in a personalized bottle with no prospectus whereas in any European country we're used to getting the full information. Americans are used to getting a lot less information, including less information on what is their position in the queue and why is it that one.
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot
  #143  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:17 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Just anecdata, but think that people in the US are used to getting Rxs in a personalized bottle with no prospectus whereas in any European country we're used to getting the full information.
Back to UK experience:

(a) Pills in bottles went out years ago - I assume it was some EU-wide agreement, but they come in blister packs and every pack has a standard-format fact sheet on what it is, how to take it, what the side-effects might be and what to do if you get them. It's one of life's minor irritations that I always seem to open the packet at the end where the leaflet has been folded round the blister packs, and I have to fish it out every time.

(b) If you're on repeat prescription (as I am for a few things) your standard prescription will be for two months (less for high-strength painkillers), and there will be a review as your GP determines, with the relevant tests (blood pressure, blood samples) to look for side-effects: in my case, it has been up to an annual interval, sometimes six months or less if there was something they thought needed closer watching. In addition, the NHS will pay the pharmacist to encourage them to undertake a "medicines use review" to double-check that you understand what your medicines are for, when to take them, and possible interactions with anything else you might be taking.
  #144  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:46 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,323
I actually have another question for UK 'dopers and the NHS. I get a regular prescription, Ambien actually (well, I usually get the generic zolpidem instead but it's pretty much the same thing). Anyway, if I were under the NHS, how would that work wrt getting the prescription every month? As a contrast, the drug is basically dirt cheap...it costs me like $2 per month for 30 pills. The bad part is I have to get this renewed literally every month with my doctor so it's a huge pain in the ass having to call it in every month then having to have the doctor approve/authorize it. How does the NHS deal with things like sleeping aids which some US insurance plans deem to be 'optional' (plus list as a controlled substance)? Just curious if it would be harder, easier or about the same. I assume the costs would be similar.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #145  
Old 02-13-2018, 10:09 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
How does the NHS deal with things like sleeping aids which some US insurance plans deem to be 'optional' (plus list as a controlled substance)? Just curious if it would be harder, easier or about the same. I assume the costs would be similar.
If a treatment is within the NICE-recommended guidance, the NHS cannot second-guess a doctor's judgement as to whether it's necessary in any individual case. "Controlled drugs" in our system (which I understand to be the addictive painkillers) might well come under a strict "one month at a time" practice (I'm guessing there's an international consensus and agreement on that through WHO and the various agreements on narcotics); and as that guidance on Zolpidem indicates, GPs will try to steer you into non-drug therapies for insomnia rather than just keep on doling out sleeping pills. I don't know what mechanisms there are for checking whether doctors are following the guidance, but I think there is some process of clinical audit that alerts the system to GPs whose prescription practice seems to be out of line somewhere. And as most are in group practices, there should be processes for mutual discussion and review within the practice, I suppose (if they've time).

Costs to the patient would be £8.60 per prescription (free or with financial help for some categories of patient). Costs to the system depend on whatever price the NHS has negotiated for the generic - and the guidance recommends sticking to the cheapest generic wherever possible.

Last edited by PatrickLondon; 02-13-2018 at 10:11 AM.
  #146  
Old 02-13-2018, 10:10 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 38,255
Again from the similar Spanish system; hit me if it's a hijack but AFAICT the biggest differences between how we work and how the NIH does it are "behind the scenes", in the financing and contracts-management end of things, rather than on what the patients see.

A few years ago, Spain started trials on something called "electronic prescriptions"; it started in one of the smallest regions (as it usually happens with this kind of organizational changes) and went so well that the biggest problem for a while wasn't deciding whether to implement it for everybody else or not, it was lack of resources to do it. Pharmacists were already linked to the healthcare system for their billing, so the physical infrastructure was in place; what was needed was the software, the training of the pharmacists themselves, and the choice and training of the people who'd manage it on the system's side.

The way it works from a patient's point of view is that you don't need to deal with paper unless you're going off-system (traveling or using a fully-private clinic, which are rare). If your doctor or nurse is in the system they can enter the scrips into the computer and those are instantly available to the pharmacists. The prescription indicates how you should take your meds, which includes "at will up to X" (my mother's anxiety medication, for example). The pharmacist will check that you or an appropriate companion/caretaker know what is it you take, when and how; they can also make notes. For example, one of my mother's at-will scrips was for a pretty large box; since she takes it very rarely, there was a risk that she'd be automatically flagged to be taken off it if she didn't buy it for several months. Her pharmacist made a note for the nurse to change the scrip to a smaller box (our nurses can't diagnose but they can renew doctor's scrips and they can give scrips for OTC medication). The direct costs to my mother are zip, since she's in one of the payment-exempt categories. For me, it's 60% of what the box says. For the system, 100% of the negotiated price on the box for Mom and 40% for me.

Last edited by Nava; 02-13-2018 at 10:12 AM.
  #147  
Old 02-13-2018, 10:24 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 38,255
Sorry, I realized I hadn't answered the question of what to do when you have a long-term scrip of something sensitive. The whole point of long-term scrips is that you don't need to renew them all the time; the great advantage of the electronic version is that you don't even need to spend five minutes every month getting your renewed scrips from the nurse's office, like you did when they were on paper. Your medication regime gets checked any time you see a doctor or nurse for any reason (both scrip and non), but that's it; the only periodic medication checks are part of periodic check-ups.

Last edited by Nava; 02-13-2018 at 10:26 AM.
  #148  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:18 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,569
Yes, we're on electronic systems as well: IF the medicine is put on your repeat list, you can use the relevant website or phone app to put in the repeat request and the pharmacy you're registered with will send a text to tell you it's ready for collection. But the request will be reviewed by the doctor or delegated prescriber in the practice, and if they think it's time for a review they will say so. Where it's something like a sleeping pill that's only to be prescribed for a short while, presumably they will call you in for a review and/or not renew until it's done: either way, you don't get a medicine just because you think you want it, there is some intervention by a qualified prescriber, either at the point of decision to put it on repeat, or as you ask for a repeat.
  #149  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:25 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,569
Meant to add: when I pick up my prescription, it comes with a print-out copy of what the paper prescription would have said, identifying me, the prescribing doctor and the dosage, the next scheduled routine review date and a summary of assorted general terms and conditions to do with prescriptions and charges.
  #150  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:27 AM
bob++ bob++ is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 5,885
I am a chronic asthmatic and have been for 40+ years. I use salbutamol and beclomethasone but the amount I use varies. Whenever I need a repeat, I log in to the Surgery's website, go through some security and tick the boxes for what I need. 48 hours later, I can collect them from the pharmacy that I chose. I am over 60 so it costs me nothing. Before that, I used to pay an annual charge (£100 or so) which covered any prescriptions I had for the full year. With an average of two per month, I was quids in.

Once a year, I get called into a group session where we get some tests (BP, temperature, lung function) and a bit of a chat to ensure that we are okay with our current medication. This is done by a Nurse Practitioner. About ten years ago, after one of these, an increased dose of the steroid was suggested.

Just to add - when I was on co-codamol for a while I requested extra before a holiday. I actually had to speak to the doctor to get the request sanctioned as there are strict limits in controlled drug prescriptions.

Last edited by bob++; 02-13-2018 at 11:30 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017