|
By:
Yes but that's a different thing entirely Foinavon , that's part of the mess we are in .
We don't know what or taxes go to, or who they go to , or why. |
|
By:
lfc,
Far more of the population is over 65 now than 150 years ago. There are far more medical treatments now than even 10 years to keep people alive. Survival rates for heart failure and cancer (the two top killers) are improving all the time. |
|
By:
Is that so? Why are we not living longer.
|
|
By:
Are there things and diseases and illnesses that the health system had to treat 100 years ago that we no longer have
TB was a massive killer, people had to spend large amounts of time in hospitals the as well , what's changed ? Nothing's changed . |
|
By:
we are living longer here in the Uk a lot to do with pills of course,but in America its stood still for the last few years
|
|
By:
There were a lot more car accidents , hospitals were not empty back in 1930
|
|
By:
@lfc
Look at this graph from the link below Figure 5: Number of Deaths by Age from the Period Life Tables for England and Wales, Males https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity /birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/mortalityinenglandandwales/2012-12-17 The most common age to die was 74 in 1850*, 75 in 1975, 82 in 2000 and 85 in 2010 *graph is a bit oddly shaped but don't think it detracts from the point. |
|
By:
hmmm that's interesting , if correct
74 in 1850, , 75 in 1975 and now 85 So if someone died in 1850 at age 74 and had a period of illness before death of say 2 years after 50 years work And at 75 in 1975 after a period of illness 2 years after 50 years work And now someone dies at 85 after a period of illness 2 years after 50 years work Why should that cost the health service any more than it did in 1975 or 1865 ? I don't know. Of course you may say that dying at 85 the person may have had s longer period of illness than in 1975 or 1865, Possibly , possibly not . I think the differences in the ages are too similar to draw the conclusion that the 85 year old has been kept alive while Ill for 10 years And only for 2 years did they require treatment in 1975 , or 1850 |
|
By:
If we are saying that people are living a little longer now , then that dies not necessarily mean that they are costing the NHS more,
How could it , is it not more likely that someone dying at 75 or even 55 will have cost the NHS at least as much , or more , or perhaps a little less But it is quite likely it could cost the NHS more if someone dies at 45. |
|
By:
you see the age thing is irrelevant
there will be the same costs to the nhs for someone who dies at 75 as at 85 and for the same length of time, only the person who dies at 75 will need treatment earlier. |
|
By:
if this was not the case why is someone dying at 75 and someone else dying at 85?
I don't know. |
|
By:
We have half of Eastern Europe here. Mainly young, many with families. They were all on full access as soon as they arrived, without ever contributing a penny. The old folk left in corridors on trolleys will have paid in for half a century.
|
|
By:
not a fan of the doctors just now. everything they propose seems to cause pain.
unless it involves antibiotics or surgery i'd go elsewhere? My GP has cancer and she's the only one in the practice that is good. the other doctors come to her to get a second opinion. the whole of the NHS is underfunded deliberately. to make it fail. then sell it off bit by bit. 9 percent in the UK, 12 percent in Germany. it's classic strangle the business and sell it off to your friends, when it fails. |
|
By:
hi zorro,what do you know about hillsong?
|
|
By:
Why do so many people continue to suffer with common ailments that simply get worse over time while they are under the doctor?
Because GPs treat the symptoms of a disease and not the disease itself. There is no profit for doctors or the pharmaceutical industry in curing people. Take these tablets for the rest of your life is the common treatment that a doctor gives to a patient. And we're in a situation where the drugs can do you more harm than the disease. Take statins. The NHS website claims that taking statins might prevent 1 in 50 people from a suffering a major heart event. That includes the extreme cases and those high-risk patients that have already had a stroke or a heart attack. Which raises the question. What are the other 49 people taking them for? There can be serious side effects from taking statins including diabetes and muscle problems. Yet doctors are trying to get more and more people on them all the time. |
|
By:
Hillsong? church?
i was looking to go back to church, but i started looking at what denomination? i was confused till i read what Blaise Pascal said about Church. the gist was that it was a leftover from the Jewish paradigm? the temple, the sabbath, the daily sacrifices, all the Jewish laws... all redundant now because of Jesus(yeshua). the pharisees even tried to condemn Jesus for working on a sabbath. I lean towards being mindful of Christ every day. Jesus said - "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. every person that believes in Christ is the church, you can go along to a baptist or a Methodist hall for fellowship? but they are all married to the world. they are organizations. the people are saved, but i wonder about the hypocrisy of the institutions. rules and regulations with nothing to do with Christ's teachings. If you seek Christ, you have found him. you are saved. paying club dues means very little. you love Christ and he loves you. We are the bride of Christ. the body of Christ. |
|
By:
hillsong church yes,beware of false prophet they say,well beware of these devils I say
|