SPOOFE wrote:
Really? Where DID that $15 billion in foreign aid spent in 2003 go, then?
A lot of it was spent for reasons other than poverty, such as helping/bribing nations who are fighting terror (Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia), keeping peace in the middle east (Egypt, Jordan and arguably Israel) or fighting the war on drugs (Columbia).
Not to say these aren't worthwhile and possibly more realistic aims than defeating poverty just that a fair degree of US aid isn't targeted to fighting poverty (although the US has improved in this regard from 10 years ago when Israel and Egypt ate up around half the aid budget on their own).
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Well, I'm a strong "charity starts at home" supporter, but other nations obviously have other ideas. It's not how much money you have, it's how you spend it that really matters. The NHS here has all the money in the world, and it's the incompetent managerial bastards that aren't using it.
The NHS is under funded compared to other western nations (the US spends almost 3 times as much per person), so I wouldn't say they have all the money in the world.
TheDarkling wrote:
The NHS is under funded compared to other western nations (the US spends almost 3 times as much per person), so I wouldn't say they have all the money in the world.
The US healthcare system is also run extremely poorly, and in large part to make a profit.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
TheDarkling wrote:
The NHS is under funded compared to other western nations (the US spends almost 3 times as much per person), so I wouldn't say they have all the money in the world.
The NHS has more than enough money to maintain adequate service for those that need it. If they want cosmetic stuff or shorter waiting times, they can go private.
No, the antithesis to the NHS working well is bad management, not lack of funds, although of course they could have more cash for pricier procedures and equipment that isn't ordinarily used. Skimmer's point adds credence.
Sea Skimmer wrote:
The US healthcare system is also run extremely poorly, and in large part to make a profit.
True enough, the US system doesn't compare favourably with European systems with roughly half the funding however the UK system is still under funded compared to the other western systems.
TheDarkling wrote:
True enough, the US system doesn't compare favourably with European systems with roughly half the funding however the UK system is still under funded compared to the other western systems.
You can be like the French and have the greatest NHS money can buy, but it will cost you a pretty penny. I doubt people would be too happy to donate that much of their income to the health services even with the litany of complaints they have, council tax is enough.
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
The NHS has more than enough money to maintain adequate service for those that need it. If they want cosmetic stuff or shorter waiting times, they can go private.
The public seems to believe waiting times are excessive (and compared to most other health care system they are or were in some cases) and want them reduced.
I'm not sure the NHS does have the money to provide adequate (compared to other nations) waiting times and I'm unsure how you have determined it does.
No, the antithesis to the NHS working well is bad management, not lack of funds, although of course they could have more cash for pricier procedures and equipment that isn't ordinarily used. Skimmer's point adds credence.
It need not be an either/or situation, the fact that we have a below average level of investment would seem to indicate the health service is under invested in, unless the rest of the planet has even more managerial problems than we do.
It's a real shame though that we care so much less about lots of little disasters or areas of poverty or life lost to disease than we do about the big shocking disasters.
Really? Where DID that $15 billion in foreign aid spent in 2003 go, then?
I wasn't just talking about the US givernment, but people as a whole.
A big dister happens and the media covers it in depth, we donate money, we talk about it a lot, and we expect our governments to give money as well.
A bunch of people die every year in some places we never really hear about from malnutrition and preventable diseases. We (myself included) tend to just ignore it.
Hi! I'm Prozac the Robert!
EBC: "We can categorically state that we will be releasing giant man-eating badgers into the area."
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
You can be like the French and have the greatest NHS money can buy, but it will cost you a pretty penny. I doubt people would be too happy to donate that much of their income to the health services even with the litany of complaints they have, council tax is enough.
The public always wants better service but don’t want to pay for it.
The French system gets roughly 50% more funding than the NHS, although Labour spending plans aim to bring us up to parity with the European average by within a few years.
