Talk:National Health Service

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This should be a disambiguation page, because NHS can also refer to National Honor Society. It doesn't make sense that a British health service should take precedence over that on Conservapedia. MountainDew 17:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Add a disambiguation page then!(The beauty of the wiki software ey ;-))MatteeNeutra 17:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
It doesn't make sense that one of the largest employers in the world and perhaps the most significant example of a socialised health system (entirely relevant to conservatives one would think) should take precedence over the "National Honor Society", whatever that is? Priceless. Mralph72 08:28, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
"One of the largest employers in the world"? Now there's a claim to fame. The NHS is behind the ... Chinese Army. I guess we need a special entry about that communist entity now too, due to its having so many employees??--Aschlafly 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, it might not be a bad idea actually. Just because it's communist (or at least a curious hybrid of unbridled capitalism, corruption and state control) doesn't mean that we should ignore it.

Exactly, are these people trying to create an encyclopaedia about the real world, or the one they want to live in? Wait, it seems Aschlafly created the Chinese Army article! Was he trolling or was what he said just badly worded? I'm confused. Anyway, unless someone wants to make an article on this Honor thing, it would make much more sense to move the National Health Service article back here, adding a line at the top about its other meaning. EmanresU 15:21, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Is this serious!? How can you possibly compare the NHS, an institution that actually saves lives (and yes, I know it is not perfect, but what system is?), and the Chinese military!? It is ridiculous. Though I am proud that the NHS is so large. I have only positive experiences of the NHS and I hope it exists far into the futureLiberalnproud

They were comparing the number of employees. What's rediculous about that? HelpJazz 21:37, 14 November 2008 (EST)

This is one of the most retarded articles I have ever read. I mean, I know it's going to have a conservative slant, but seriously?

The NHS is continuously rated on of the top health systems in the world... DasBeta 17:27, 15 February 2015 (EST)

DasBeta, no offense intended, but I have seen a lot of leftist lie at Conservapedia so I can't take what people claim at face value without sufficient evidence being provided. I also recall various scandals being reported about the NHS in recent years. So please provide evidence for your claim. Furthermore, the Conserpvapedia commandments indicate that claims be supported in articles.Conservative 17:42, 15 February 2015 (EST)
Here is one report on it: And here are some other statistics:
Indeed there have been scandals involving the NHS, but overall it continues to be well received by the general public, nearly half would want to pay more taxes for it. DasBeta 18:43, 15 February 2015 (EST)

I know Mayor Bloomberg's politics is probably left of center (I believe he still owns the Bloomberg company and probably gives it some degree of oversight), but the Bloomberg data was helpful because it gave the lifespan information for each country along with the Bloomberg efficiency ranking. Bloomberg's rating for the Swiss system is kind of surprising given the long lifespans of the Swiss, their reputation for efficiency and the fact that although the Swiss are mandated to buy health insurance by the government, I believe they have a private system of health care system and not a government run system (I think competition can increase efficiency).

As far as the links related to the CommonWealth Fund, it appears as if they are a liberal thinktank. I am hesitant to take their rating seriously given the left's reputation for lack of honesty (Obmas saying, "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it", etc. etc.).

Although I would have liked to see a broader political spectrum of your sources along with the sources revealing what they based their ranking on, I do thank you for the time you spent compiling the links for me. Conservative 19:23, 15 February 2015 (EST)

As far as Brits willing to pay more taxes to improve their system, I am reminded of this quote: "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." - Harriet Tubman. I am a believer in Thomas Jefferson/American founding fathers model of limited government. The historical record shows many cases of tyranny, screw ups and much inefficiency associated with big government. Jesus was right, "The rulers of the gentiles rule it over them".
And many people in North Korea will say they have a good country due to nationalism. So many Brits saying they have a good system is not very impressive as it may be partly due to nationalism. I would say, "Your system is good, compared to what?". Many people do not take into account opportunity cost.
I realize that the Brits are not slaves or living in North Korea like conditions, but I do think that more freedom and less freedom is preferable in a system along with competitive forces and a high degree of accountability keeping people on their toes and trying their best (which the private sector often provides). Judging by their lifespans and reputations for toughmindedness/efficiency, my guess is that the Singaporeans and Swiss have the best systems outside of the USA. I know many Americans are unhappy with the post ObamaCare condition of their medical system (and the pre-Obama post 1950s conditions as well) and American lifespans should be at least 4 years longer at a minimum plus they should have less chronic diseases requiring medical attention. Conservative 19:49, 15 February 2015 (EST)