This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I see that from 2007 an EU health and safety law kicks in which makes the wearing of helmets and one piece chest and waist harnesses compulsory when engaged in climbing on commercial premises.....Indoor Climbing Walls.
Wall owners face fines or imprisonment if clients use the wall in an inappropriate manner....without a helmet and full harness.
The same committee which recommended the new regulation is looking to extend the new regime to natural crags and mountain cliffs by 2010 in the same way that the UK Government made motor cycle helmet wearing compulsory in the 80's.
In reply to Jonno:
that'll be fun. Do yopu think they'll make boulderng amts illegal and expect everyone to top rope traverses with helmets on?
Pete
that'll be fun. Do yopu think they'll make boulderng amts illegal and expect everyone to top rope traverses with helmets on?
Pete
In reply to Jonno:
Was that the 1880s ?
> the UK Government made motor cycle helmet wearing compulsory in the 80's.
Was that the 1880s ?
In reply to Jonno:
It is not necessary to wear a motorcycle helmet on private property, only highways and RUPs.
I can't see how compulsory helmet wearing on natural crags could be legislated.
James
It is not necessary to wear a motorcycle helmet on private property, only highways and RUPs.
I can't see how compulsory helmet wearing on natural crags could be legislated.
James
In reply to Rothermere:
Or enforced
> I can't see how compulsory helmet wearing on natural crags could be legislated.
>
> James
>
> James
Or enforced
In reply to hutchm: bit like hunting really.
Why shouldn't people be banned from soloing, if we top ropes everything there'd be fewer accidents and less train on the NHS, surely it's worth giving up some freedoms to achieve this beenfit?
Why shouldn't people be banned from soloing, if we top ropes everything there'd be fewer accidents and less train on the NHS, surely it's worth giving up some freedoms to achieve this beenfit?
In reply to sloper:
fair point sloper, my love of sol;oing is totally selfish and friends regularly tell me so.
Pete
fair point sloper, my love of sol;oing is totally selfish and friends regularly tell me so.
Pete
In reply to sloper:
Or eating lard. Or smoking...
> (In reply to hutchm) bit like hunting really.
>
> Why shouldn't people be banned from soloing, if we top ropes everything there'd be fewer accidents and less train on the NHS, surely it's worth giving up some freedoms to achieve this beenfit?
>
> Why shouldn't people be banned from soloing, if we top ropes everything there'd be fewer accidents and less train on the NHS, surely it's worth giving up some freedoms to achieve this beenfit?
Or eating lard. Or smoking...
In reply to sloper:
I just had this vision of you as Gollum when I read that.
> if we top ropes everything
I just had this vision of you as Gollum when I read that.
In reply to Jonno:
Can you point me towards this directive/regulation on the web? What's it called?
>
> I see that from 2007 an EU health and safety law kicks in
> I see that from 2007 an EU health and safety law kicks in
Can you point me towards this directive/regulation on the web? What's it called?
In reply to hutchm:
It's probably the one that's called 'Working at Heights Directive' or something like that. The BMC have been doing a lot of talking with the HSE over how bloody stupid it is - there's stuff on their past news pages I would imagine.
It's probably the one that's called 'Working at Heights Directive' or something like that. The BMC have been doing a lot of talking with the HSE over how bloody stupid it is - there's stuff on their past news pages I would imagine.
In reply to Jonno:
Sounds like european gear manufacturers have been lobbying MEP's, in a blatant effort to push sales of helmets and full body harnesses!
Commercial companies would never stoop so low -- would they?
Either that or it's another ploy by the legal/insurance mafia to give them another law / loophole / avenue for claims and reasons not to pay out!
I've got my cynical head on this morning.
Sounds like european gear manufacturers have been lobbying MEP's, in a blatant effort to push sales of helmets and full body harnesses!
Commercial companies would never stoop so low -- would they?
Either that or it's another ploy by the legal/insurance mafia to give them another law / loophole / avenue for claims and reasons not to pay out!
I've got my cynical head on this morning.
In reply to Jonno: would an improvised chest harness combined with a sit harness be acceptable?
In reply to Jonno: i think its a load of knobbing bollox why the f*ck should we have to wear chest harnesses and helmets in an indoor wall, and on an outdoor crag it is a matter of personal taste, if i'm climbing something hard i wear a helmet, something easy i don't. We should not be told what we can and can't wear safety wise on the rocks MOST climbers are well aware of the risks that come with the sport and are big enough to accept any damage they cause to themselves. If i took a fall at an indoor wall and banged my head i wouldn't sue the wall i would understand that is was my fault for climbing above my grade or whatever the reason,I recently twisted my ankle at the edge in sheffield while bouldering, did i storm in all guns blazing with accusations of the mats being too hard or any other wank excuses, no i mereley accepted that shit like this happens in climbing and got on with it.I don't usually have strong opinions on these forums, but this has really f*cked me off (as you might have guessed).
In reply to James Jackson:
Seeing that there is nothing to be found about it on the eu homepage http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm and google doesn't turn up anything like that either, I guess that's just a myth.
Seeing that there is nothing to be found about it on the eu homepage http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm and google doesn't turn up anything like that either, I guess that's just a myth.
In reply to Jonno:
Erm what regulation are you talking about, can you post a link?
Or is it a straight banana thing?
http://www.andrewduffmep.org.uk/pages/myth-food.html
Erm what regulation are you talking about, can you post a link?
Or is it a straight banana thing?
http://www.andrewduffmep.org.uk/pages/myth-food.html
In reply to James Jackson:
Isn't that health and safety legislation which impacts on employees of climbing centres etc, rather than clientele?
BMC has been doing a bit of work on this, and the HSE appears to be taking a reasonable approach to implementation in the 'adventure' sector.
Can't find much mention of helmets in the draft legislation.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/hsc/meetings/2004/121004/c04114c.pdf
Isn't that health and safety legislation which impacts on employees of climbing centres etc, rather than clientele?
BMC has been doing a bit of work on this, and the HSE appears to be taking a reasonable approach to implementation in the 'adventure' sector.
Can't find much mention of helmets in the draft legislation.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/hsc/meetings/2004/121004/c04114c.pdf
In reply to Adam Moroz: I feel pretty much the same way you do but the fact of the matter is that the general public picks up the medical bill.
In reply to Justin: In reply to Justin:And the public picks up the bill for all us lardies, including my fellow fat barstewards that do not get out on the hill...
Not too clever putting obstacles in the way of exercise. Nor cost effective. That goes for bike helmet compulsion too.
Still in the total surveillance state you will do as you are told.
(just had to register again.. passwords gone dead.. I love registration on websites as much as I love Tony)
Not too clever putting obstacles in the way of exercise. Nor cost effective. That goes for bike helmet compulsion too.
Still in the total surveillance state you will do as you are told.
(just had to register again.. passwords gone dead.. I love registration on websites as much as I love Tony)
In reply to Justin:
1. We all pay NI
2. By your logic simply ban all sports (rugby, football, martial arts, gymnastics - is there a sport where people don't get injured?), diy, gardening, cooking, driving, playgrounds, etc. In fact being alive is a drain on the NHS
3. What a fuc@ing stupid remark
1. We all pay NI
2. By your logic simply ban all sports (rugby, football, martial arts, gymnastics - is there a sport where people don't get injured?), diy, gardening, cooking, driving, playgrounds, etc. In fact being alive is a drain on the NHS
3. What a fuc@ing stupid remark
In reply to Justin: That's a fair point i suppose
In reply to Jonno:
Sounds very similar to the thing a while ago about having to put scaffolding on crags to stop them being dangerous (can someone extrapolate, i can't really remember it myself) and that turned out to be bollocks.
I have a theory that the labour government were actually quite happy being the opressed opposition, and that's why they're coming up with all this bulshit and consequently losing votes by the second!!!
Besides which it'll never happen anyway!!!
Sounds very similar to the thing a while ago about having to put scaffolding on crags to stop them being dangerous (can someone extrapolate, i can't really remember it myself) and that turned out to be bollocks.
I have a theory that the labour government were actually quite happy being the opressed opposition, and that's why they're coming up with all this bulshit and consequently losing votes by the second!!!
Besides which it'll never happen anyway!!!
In reply to Jonno:
wont telling us what to do and what to wear when doing stuff in our free time be against basic human rights?
next will be we have to wear helmets when its storming because roof tiles can fall on our heads.
wont telling us what to do and what to wear when doing stuff in our free time be against basic human rights?
next will be we have to wear helmets when its storming because roof tiles can fall on our heads.
In reply to Pete E:
It's not total 'bollocks'. The HSE are, I believe, responsible for implementing the European legislation on Working at Height. Whilst this legislation has primarily been written with the construction industry in mind, in the initial plans for implementing it would also have applied to climbing in any 'work' situation (i.e. instructors working with groups indoors or out). My memory is that this would include, eg, using 2 ropes with independent belays at all times......
The BMC have been doing a lot to ensure it's implemented in a more sensible fashion (I think many other EU countries are planning exceptions for mountaineering) - but it was by no means a given that this would be the case!
It's not total 'bollocks'. The HSE are, I believe, responsible for implementing the European legislation on Working at Height. Whilst this legislation has primarily been written with the construction industry in mind, in the initial plans for implementing it would also have applied to climbing in any 'work' situation (i.e. instructors working with groups indoors or out). My memory is that this would include, eg, using 2 ropes with independent belays at all times......
The BMC have been doing a lot to ensure it's implemented in a more sensible fashion (I think many other EU countries are planning exceptions for mountaineering) - but it was by no means a given that this would be the case!
In reply to JonL:
1)NI doesn't finance the NHS
2)Yes , that is the logical progression and we can see that we are gradually going in that direction : seat belts, helmets , strict rules on public playground equipment , smoking . The question is , at what point does it stop ?
3)It is a rational point since increasingly we see the cost of NHS treatment as a justification for restrictions on personal behaviour (eg.smoking).
4)It is yet another reason why healthcare should not be financed out of taxation . If we had to pay for it we'd be more responsible about our own safety .
1)NI doesn't finance the NHS
2)Yes , that is the logical progression and we can see that we are gradually going in that direction : seat belts, helmets , strict rules on public playground equipment , smoking . The question is , at what point does it stop ?
3)It is a rational point since increasingly we see the cost of NHS treatment as a justification for restrictions on personal behaviour (eg.smoking).
4)It is yet another reason why healthcare should not be financed out of taxation . If we had to pay for it we'd be more responsible about our own safety .
In reply to Postmanpat: and those that were anti fox hunting should hang their heads in shame.
In reply to Jonno: Well I think you're trolling (extending an EU directive beyond its scope) and a lot of people have been caught on your hook.
If it is a troll - well done.
If it is a troll - well done.
In reply to MeMeMe: If you want a laugh about EU legislation/beaurocracy gone mad have a look at this summary about the chocolate situation http://www.britanniafood.com/german/invite_01.htm
In reply to Michael Hood:
Why is that an example of anything 'gone mad', exactly?
Presumably you think it's a lot of words for something as apparently simple as chocolate - well you're entitled to think so, but all those words have arisen out of the conflicting desires of people who make chocolate and want to sell it (not an unreasonable aim in life?) and people who like chocolate and want to buy it (may include you?). Or would you prefer a situation where products can say whatever the hell they like on the label, and more fool us if we all don't read the small print on every single thing you buy and understand every single name of every single ingredient?
If you think this this sort of thing was never a problem before the EU got involved, please by all means check out national food legislation pre-EU, I suspect you'll find a fair few words there too.
And why the f*ck can't people just learn how to spell bureaucracy while they're about it?
Why is that an example of anything 'gone mad', exactly?
Presumably you think it's a lot of words for something as apparently simple as chocolate - well you're entitled to think so, but all those words have arisen out of the conflicting desires of people who make chocolate and want to sell it (not an unreasonable aim in life?) and people who like chocolate and want to buy it (may include you?). Or would you prefer a situation where products can say whatever the hell they like on the label, and more fool us if we all don't read the small print on every single thing you buy and understand every single name of every single ingredient?
If you think this this sort of thing was never a problem before the EU got involved, please by all means check out national food legislation pre-EU, I suspect you'll find a fair few words there too.
And why the f*ck can't people just learn how to spell bureaucracy while they're about it?
In reply to JonL: are you sugegsting funding for the nhs is hypothecated and limited to the NI take?
In reply to Jonno:
new regulation is looking to extend the new regime to natural crags and mountain cliffs by 2010 in the same way that the UK Government made motor cycle helmet wearing compulsory in the 80's.
Do they have any suggestions on how we should wipe our backsides? I have also suspected that my technique could be improved upon by forward thinking government official.
new regulation is looking to extend the new regime to natural crags and mountain cliffs by 2010 in the same way that the UK Government made motor cycle helmet wearing compulsory in the 80's.
Do they have any suggestions on how we should wipe our backsides? I have also suspected that my technique could be improved upon by forward thinking government official.
In reply to sloper:
Sloper if you are going to use the word "hypothecated" in a sentence at least make sure you spelled all the other words right.
> (In reply to JonL) are you sugegsting funding for the nhs is hypothecated and limited to the NI take?
Sloper if you are going to use the word "hypothecated" in a sentence at least make sure you spelled all the other words right.
In reply to sloper: Sloper I just saw someone mention your poor spelling on Vlads "Good morning all thread" and I chuckled because I had just posted about your spelling, whats wrong with you son!!, are your fingers to slow for your mind or something?
In reply to Shaun:
"whats wrong with you son!!, are your fingers to slow for your mind or something?"
The words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind.
"whats wrong with you son!!, are your fingers to slow for your mind or something?"
The words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind.
In reply to Serpico:
rats, make that "too" then.
> (In reply to Shaun)
> "whats wrong with you son!!, are your fingers to slow for your mind or something?"
> The words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind.
> "whats wrong with you son!!, are your fingers to slow for your mind or something?"
> The words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind.
rats, make that "too" then.
In reply to JonL:
When it was set up the principle was that it would be paid for out of general taxation .It is now a mixture so I'll settle for a score draw but it actually makes do difference to my central point that financing health service out of "taxes" makes it vulnerable to being used as an excuse for restricting our freedoms .
When it was set up the principle was that it would be paid for out of general taxation .It is now a mixture so I'll settle for a score draw but it actually makes do difference to my central point that financing health service out of "taxes" makes it vulnerable to being used as an excuse for restricting our freedoms .
In reply to Jonno:
That'll be 'I see from my reading of the Daily Mail Big Book of Lies About The EU' then?
>
> I see that from 2007 an EU health and safety law kicks in
(Blah Blah)
> I see that from 2007 an EU health and safety law kicks in
That'll be 'I see from my reading of the Daily Mail Big Book of Lies About The EU' then?
In reply to sloper:
No, but recent trends are towards increases in NICs being used to top-up funding for the NHS. There is alot of speculation that we could be moving towards a socialist system of healthcare funding (such as in France and Germany) where the healthcare system is funded entirely through NICs.
However, this was not my point. All of us (with a few free-spirit exceptions) fund the NHS through taxes/NICs and are therefore paying for our use of the NHS. The benefits to our health (long and short term) through training / climbing / hill-walking etc probably outweigh any costs incurred though injury. So the original argument that we are a burden on the NHS was bollocks.
No, but recent trends are towards increases in NICs being used to top-up funding for the NHS. There is alot of speculation that we could be moving towards a socialist system of healthcare funding (such as in France and Germany) where the healthcare system is funded entirely through NICs.
However, this was not my point. All of us (with a few free-spirit exceptions) fund the NHS through taxes/NICs and are therefore paying for our use of the NHS. The benefits to our health (long and short term) through training / climbing / hill-walking etc probably outweigh any costs incurred though injury. So the original argument that we are a burden on the NHS was bollocks.
In reply to tmh: Sorry about the spelling, knew it was wrong as soon as I'd hit "submit" but couldn't be bothered to sort it out.
I felt that the problem with the bureaucracy was the attempt to try and get different things (i.e. british style and continental style chocolates) into one piece of all encompassing regulation. It degraded into farce (almost).
Ultimately, clear labelling and education is a much healthier way forward than nanny state regulation. The regulation should be there to stop misrepresentation (1 s or 2?). If all the labelling/packaging etc, is truthful and complete (cloud cuckoo land), then we should be able to make our own decisions.
I felt that the problem with the bureaucracy was the attempt to try and get different things (i.e. british style and continental style chocolates) into one piece of all encompassing regulation. It degraded into farce (almost).
Ultimately, clear labelling and education is a much healthier way forward than nanny state regulation. The regulation should be there to stop misrepresentation (1 s or 2?). If all the labelling/packaging etc, is truthful and complete (cloud cuckoo land), then we should be able to make our own decisions.
In reply to Jonno:
Interfering bastards, we should abandon europe completley and get on with running our own country on our own without some foriegn idiot who's never been to the UK telling us what to do!!!!!!! Especially about a sport that they dont understand and never will from behind their screwed up bureacracy.
Interfering bastards, we should abandon europe completley and get on with running our own country on our own without some foriegn idiot who's never been to the UK telling us what to do!!!!!!! Especially about a sport that they dont understand and never will from behind their screwed up bureacracy.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Warning: Not really on topic, just a rant at a particular point............
Have you ever lived somewhere where you do have to pay for your healthcare? If so, your view surprises me. It is extremely stressful everytime you get the slightest niggle of illness as you know there will be a big bill ahead. You find yourself denying it's existence in the hope it will go away. Reality is that one time that niggle could be something very serious and the ignoring it will end up with you being extremely ill!
The UK is honoured to have such a great free service. (I wouldn't have said that when I lived there though!)
The only way round the issue here is to have insurance, however that insurance is too expensive to have cover for everything so you always end up paying for something. Total taxation is at the same level here as the UK so you don't save there. You always have to subsidise in some way if you use the health system. The insurance companies also do everything they can to avoid paying, either by excluding the slightest thing from your medical history or by trying to find a loophole to get round it. Because of an illness in my childhood, I have so many exclusions on my insurance here that it is hardly worth having, so I face bankrupcy if I ever get seriously ill with anything even closely relating to that. Recently we've made use of our insurance and even then they tried to wriggle out of it. Fortunately they gave in and paid the bill. Very fortunate as it was for way more than we could have afforded to pay.
Does that sound like a situation you would like to have in the UK? Being scared everytime you get ill that you might be wiped out of everything you have?
I understand where you are coming from with your comment about social responsibility, but until you have experienced the other side you don't really realise what a great thing the UK system is.
As an aside, NZ has some of the worst figures for alot of health issues in the 'western world', in particular cancer. This may be totally unrelated to this issue, but it wouldn't surprise me if the fear of going to the doctor due to the cost causes many cancers to progress too far for treatment to be effective.
(In defence of the system, the service here is very good and if you have an 'acute condition' ie it is life threatening or you are involved in an accident, the healthcare is free. The health systems idea of acute can differ from yours though - you could be doomed to lie in bed unable to move for the rest of your life, but because you won't actually die from the problem, they won't help you!)
Warning: Not really on topic, just a rant at a particular point............
Have you ever lived somewhere where you do have to pay for your healthcare? If so, your view surprises me. It is extremely stressful everytime you get the slightest niggle of illness as you know there will be a big bill ahead. You find yourself denying it's existence in the hope it will go away. Reality is that one time that niggle could be something very serious and the ignoring it will end up with you being extremely ill!
The UK is honoured to have such a great free service. (I wouldn't have said that when I lived there though!)
The only way round the issue here is to have insurance, however that insurance is too expensive to have cover for everything so you always end up paying for something. Total taxation is at the same level here as the UK so you don't save there. You always have to subsidise in some way if you use the health system. The insurance companies also do everything they can to avoid paying, either by excluding the slightest thing from your medical history or by trying to find a loophole to get round it. Because of an illness in my childhood, I have so many exclusions on my insurance here that it is hardly worth having, so I face bankrupcy if I ever get seriously ill with anything even closely relating to that. Recently we've made use of our insurance and even then they tried to wriggle out of it. Fortunately they gave in and paid the bill. Very fortunate as it was for way more than we could have afforded to pay.
Does that sound like a situation you would like to have in the UK? Being scared everytime you get ill that you might be wiped out of everything you have?
I understand where you are coming from with your comment about social responsibility, but until you have experienced the other side you don't really realise what a great thing the UK system is.
As an aside, NZ has some of the worst figures for alot of health issues in the 'western world', in particular cancer. This may be totally unrelated to this issue, but it wouldn't surprise me if the fear of going to the doctor due to the cost causes many cancers to progress too far for treatment to be effective.
(In defence of the system, the service here is very good and if you have an 'acute condition' ie it is life threatening or you are involved in an accident, the healthcare is free. The health systems idea of acute can differ from yours though - you could be doomed to lie in bed unable to move for the rest of your life, but because you won't actually die from the problem, they won't help you!)
In reply to bwt:
how can you abandon Europe when you're part of it, or did you mean the European Union ? but even there its UK ministers & MEPS who agree to whats being done
Come back and rant again once you have some idea what you're ranting about.
how can you abandon Europe when you're part of it, or did you mean the European Union ? but even there its UK ministers & MEPS who agree to whats being done
Come back and rant again once you have some idea what you're ranting about.
In reply to cleddy:
I agree. People should come and live in the states before slagging off the NHS. Over 50 % of bankruptcies in the US are related to people who had insurance but developed a chronic condition (including sports injuries). The insurance companies cease paying after a certain period and then it is bye bye house etc. The service over here in HMOs is also worse than the NHS.
I agree. People should come and live in the states before slagging off the NHS. Over 50 % of bankruptcies in the US are related to people who had insurance but developed a chronic condition (including sports injuries). The insurance companies cease paying after a certain period and then it is bye bye house etc. The service over here in HMOs is also worse than the NHS.
In reply to brian crawford:
It always seems to me to be a rather weak argument , used whenever anybody questionss the concept of the NHS as it is now , to cite the US model as the only alternative . Does it have to be beyond human ingenuity to develop a system which , whilst not built around a Stalinist state model , does not leave 10% of the population uninsured .
Having said that , I believe that about 1 million people per year go bankrupt in the US as a result of health costs (about .3% of the population) . Judging by statistics available for, for example the outcomes of heart disease and a number of other ailments , at least that percentage of people probably die unnecessarily in the UK because of inadequate treatment .
Given the choice ,I think I'd go for bankruptcy .
It always seems to me to be a rather weak argument , used whenever anybody questionss the concept of the NHS as it is now , to cite the US model as the only alternative . Does it have to be beyond human ingenuity to develop a system which , whilst not built around a Stalinist state model , does not leave 10% of the population uninsured .
Having said that , I believe that about 1 million people per year go bankrupt in the US as a result of health costs (about .3% of the population) . Judging by statistics available for, for example the outcomes of heart disease and a number of other ailments , at least that percentage of people probably die unnecessarily in the UK because of inadequate treatment .
Given the choice ,I think I'd go for bankruptcy .
In reply to Jonno: i guess that classic belay will be out of question,but i must say i do always wear a crach helmet whenever im out or in and i do promote wear of crash helmet i rather share my pair of shoes than my helmet{its a bit like sharing an underware] but for the harness there i dont realy undestand.
In reply to Postmanpat:
There you go again, saying .3% go bankrupt over there as a result of health costs. WTF hs that to do with deaths here for poor care? How many people overall die over there of the same diseases?
Oh, that .3% probably accounts for a 1% of families going bust, a much larger figure tan your original one.
What % of people in the states never even get the poor care because they cannot afford it and do not get treated/
There you go again, saying .3% go bankrupt over there as a result of health costs. WTF hs that to do with deaths here for poor care? How many people overall die over there of the same diseases?
Oh, that .3% probably accounts for a 1% of families going bust, a much larger figure tan your original one.
What % of people in the states never even get the poor care because they cannot afford it and do not get treated/
In reply to Postmanpat:
I wasn't talking about the UK. I was talking about NZ.
Here it is somewhere in between the US and the UK as I described above.
Emergency and accident related treatment is free, including sports injuries. Life threatening conditions are treated free. Pregnancy is covered free. However everything else costs you money, and quite a lot of it too.
For example, visiting the doctors costs $45. That feels like about 30GBP relative to what you earn. Even as a reasonable earner, I tend to put things off for a bit rather than go straight away due to the cost. Opticians are about $60 for a check up, about 40GBP and dentists more like $100 (60GBP). That is expensive and something you have to think about. Also all drugs have to be paid for at drug price. For example I have to pay $100 every 3 months for prescription drugs. An x-ray to find out if you actually have something wrong will put you back about $200....
You have to pay for children too. A reduced rate, but you still have to pay for them. Can you imagine if you happen to have an accident prone kid. You'd end up having to choose between buying them school clothes or getting them treatment!
The service is very good here. The doctors are aware that you are paying and as a result don't tend to refer you to people unnecessarily or keep you on drugs you don't really need. You get the treatment when you need it and you don't have to wait weeks for an appointment.
It is somewhere in the middle and for the vast majority of the people, most of the time, it doesn't cause too much of an issue.
However, the occasion where we just had to make use of our insurance would have ruined some families. It was a non-critical condition which would never be covered by the health service. However it was having a very negative impact on lifestyle as many things had to be avoided. In our case it didn't mean being unable to work, but for some people it could. It was a very simple treatment, far more simple than many things, yet it cost so much that if we'd had to pay it ourselves without the insurance, we'd have had to take out a loan at 19.5% interest rate. Many families wouldn't have been able to afford that loan or the insurance, and even worse, if they'd got to the point where they couldn't work, they wouldn't be able to save for it either.
The time when it really affects you is when you get old. Here if you are an elderly person who is completely healthy in every way, but at the age of 65 for example need a hip replacement, the chances are you will be unable to have one. Reason being that by that age, insurance prices have gone through the roof despite the fact that you have paid in for 40 years and have never claimed. On your meagre pension that is an expense you have had to discard. The problem isn't life threatening so the health service won't cover it (they do technically, but you get put on a list which few people actually make the top of). The only other option is to pay for it yourself, something you probably can't afford to do without selling up, which at 65 isn't really an option as you don't have any working life left to get more capital!
Difficult choice, never walk properly again, or lose your house (and then where do you live?)
I wasn't talking about the UK. I was talking about NZ.
Here it is somewhere in between the US and the UK as I described above.
Emergency and accident related treatment is free, including sports injuries. Life threatening conditions are treated free. Pregnancy is covered free. However everything else costs you money, and quite a lot of it too.
For example, visiting the doctors costs $45. That feels like about 30GBP relative to what you earn. Even as a reasonable earner, I tend to put things off for a bit rather than go straight away due to the cost. Opticians are about $60 for a check up, about 40GBP and dentists more like $100 (60GBP). That is expensive and something you have to think about. Also all drugs have to be paid for at drug price. For example I have to pay $100 every 3 months for prescription drugs. An x-ray to find out if you actually have something wrong will put you back about $200....
You have to pay for children too. A reduced rate, but you still have to pay for them. Can you imagine if you happen to have an accident prone kid. You'd end up having to choose between buying them school clothes or getting them treatment!
The service is very good here. The doctors are aware that you are paying and as a result don't tend to refer you to people unnecessarily or keep you on drugs you don't really need. You get the treatment when you need it and you don't have to wait weeks for an appointment.
It is somewhere in the middle and for the vast majority of the people, most of the time, it doesn't cause too much of an issue.
However, the occasion where we just had to make use of our insurance would have ruined some families. It was a non-critical condition which would never be covered by the health service. However it was having a very negative impact on lifestyle as many things had to be avoided. In our case it didn't mean being unable to work, but for some people it could. It was a very simple treatment, far more simple than many things, yet it cost so much that if we'd had to pay it ourselves without the insurance, we'd have had to take out a loan at 19.5% interest rate. Many families wouldn't have been able to afford that loan or the insurance, and even worse, if they'd got to the point where they couldn't work, they wouldn't be able to save for it either.
The time when it really affects you is when you get old. Here if you are an elderly person who is completely healthy in every way, but at the age of 65 for example need a hip replacement, the chances are you will be unable to have one. Reason being that by that age, insurance prices have gone through the roof despite the fact that you have paid in for 40 years and have never claimed. On your meagre pension that is an expense you have had to discard. The problem isn't life threatening so the health service won't cover it (they do technically, but you get put on a list which few people actually make the top of). The only other option is to pay for it yourself, something you probably can't afford to do without selling up, which at 65 isn't really an option as you don't have any working life left to get more capital!
Difficult choice, never walk properly again, or lose your house (and then where do you live?)
In reply to sutty:
Interesting comparison article on US/UK healthcare in the spectator
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=5669
You may have to register, but it's free, and you get to read a lot of superior ranting once a week.
In a nutshell, it points out a great many advantages of the US scheme, while highlighting the negative financial impact of the system on those with middle incomes. It picks out in particular the lower mortality from cancer, probably due to a greater availability of diagnosis equipment and, of course, the tendency to test everything that moves.
Interesting comparison article on US/UK healthcare in the spectator
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=5669
You may have to register, but it's free, and you get to read a lot of superior ranting once a week.
In a nutshell, it points out a great many advantages of the US scheme, while highlighting the negative financial impact of the system on those with middle incomes. It picks out in particular the lower mortality from cancer, probably due to a greater availability of diagnosis equipment and, of course, the tendency to test everything that moves.
In reply to hutchm:
If I recall correctly, the Septic's spend about twice as much of their GDP on health than us. I would therefore argue that our health service, for all its faults is more effecient, whilst providing free at the point of delivery service.
If I recall correctly, the Septic's spend about twice as much of their GDP on health than us. I would therefore argue that our health service, for all its faults is more effecient, whilst providing free at the point of delivery service.
In reply to hutchm:
Something not often mentioned is the huge variation in cost of getting treated there. A friend was advised to get a plane to somewhere well away from California as that was the dearest place on earth to be treated. Something that would cost $10000 there was around $1000 at the cheaper places.
Something not often mentioned is the huge variation in cost of getting treated there. A friend was advised to get a plane to somewhere well away from California as that was the dearest place on earth to be treated. Something that would cost $10000 there was around $1000 at the cheaper places.
In reply to sutty:
Whereas here, of course, we still pay for significant variation in the cost of an operation, but this passes less noticed as we don't get the bill directly.
One study found a 300% range in the cost of a heart bypass from cheapest to dearest.
Fixed fees are on the way...
> (In reply to hutchm)
>
> Something not often mentioned is the huge variation in cost of getting treated there.
>
> Something not often mentioned is the huge variation in cost of getting treated there.
Whereas here, of course, we still pay for significant variation in the cost of an operation, but this passes less noticed as we don't get the bill directly.
One study found a 300% range in the cost of a heart bypass from cheapest to dearest.
Fixed fees are on the way...
In reply to hutchm:
Fixed fees will not work to the advantage of anyone, there needs to be variation for none elective surgery. Otherwise people would die being transferred to the cheaper specialist units where the local A+E would have done an op at a dearer price in safety. Specialist hospitals are nice for the health service but sod all use when you cannot visit relatives 200 miles away, or even 40 miles if there is no public transport.
Fixed fees will not work to the advantage of anyone, there needs to be variation for none elective surgery. Otherwise people would die being transferred to the cheaper specialist units where the local A+E would have done an op at a dearer price in safety. Specialist hospitals are nice for the health service but sod all use when you cannot visit relatives 200 miles away, or even 40 miles if there is no public transport.
In reply to sutty:
Sutty ,
1)As I make it abundantly clear , I am not arguing the case for the UK adopting the US system .It clearly leaves 10-15% of the population in an unacceptable position .What I am arguing is that to imply that any movement away from the virtual monoploly by the state of health provision means adopting the US system is at best lazy argument and at worst scaremongering .
2)My second point is that , whatever its failings , the US system overall produces better outcomes than the UK system (in repsonse to "How many people die there for the same diseases?). This includes those on medicare and medicaid who have considerably more spent on them per capita than those dependent on the NHS .
3)The exception to <2> , above are the 10-15% not on private or state health insurance .
4)What % never get treated ? I don't know but the very poor, young and old are covered by state insurance (about 30-40% of the total ?). The 15% who are uninsured almost certainly pay for some treatment .
Anybody who enters a hospital and get diagnosed which would include even most of those who could not afford futher treatment will appear in the overall statistics of success and failure so your point is covered within the statistics already .
5)You'll hjave to repeat your point about 0.3% and 1% because I don't see what your getting at . I don't actually know how reliable the 1 million bankruptcies is but is equivalent to 200,000 Brits . That would be equivalent to 200,000 Brits .so I guess the question should be do 200,000 Brits or more die or suffer seriously as a result of poor healthcare each year .For that matter , how many suffer serious finaincial loss because the NHS fails to treat them properly ?
I emphasise that I don't claim to know the answer as to how to fuind and run a health service but if the questions don't get asked we never will .
Sutty ,
1)As I make it abundantly clear , I am not arguing the case for the UK adopting the US system .It clearly leaves 10-15% of the population in an unacceptable position .What I am arguing is that to imply that any movement away from the virtual monoploly by the state of health provision means adopting the US system is at best lazy argument and at worst scaremongering .
2)My second point is that , whatever its failings , the US system overall produces better outcomes than the UK system (in repsonse to "How many people die there for the same diseases?). This includes those on medicare and medicaid who have considerably more spent on them per capita than those dependent on the NHS .
3)The exception to <2> , above are the 10-15% not on private or state health insurance .
4)What % never get treated ? I don't know but the very poor, young and old are covered by state insurance (about 30-40% of the total ?). The 15% who are uninsured almost certainly pay for some treatment .
Anybody who enters a hospital and get diagnosed which would include even most of those who could not afford futher treatment will appear in the overall statistics of success and failure so your point is covered within the statistics already .
5)You'll hjave to repeat your point about 0.3% and 1% because I don't see what your getting at . I don't actually know how reliable the 1 million bankruptcies is but is equivalent to 200,000 Brits . That would be equivalent to 200,000 Brits .so I guess the question should be do 200,000 Brits or more die or suffer seriously as a result of poor healthcare each year .For that matter , how many suffer serious finaincial loss because the NHS fails to treat them properly ?
I emphasise that I don't claim to know the answer as to how to fuind and run a health service but if the questions don't get asked we never will .
In reply to Shaun:
A few apostrophes and commas would have been good too.
>
> rats, make that "too" then.
> rats, make that "too" then.
A few apostrophes and commas would have been good too.
In reply to Jonno:
And about time too! But that's not going far enough, it needs to be extended to include climbing outdoors as well, and should apply to all climbers, not just commercial ventures.
Not only should we be forced to use helmets and a full body harness, but be banned from using any rope less than 11mm. Thinner ropes are more likely to break. Leading and soloing must be banned and only top roping permitted. Bouldering at more than one meter above the ground should not be permitted without a top rope. Anyone belaying should hold a certificate to prove they have been properly trained.
It's time we realised that climbing is dangerous and only the Government and EU can provide adequate protection for us.
These proposals are a step in the right direction, but as I say above they don't go far enough as presently proposed. I also suggest a ban on climbing in just shorts or T shirts due to the risk of grazing your elbows or knees. Knee and elbow protectors like those used by skateboarders need to be phased in, and a visor added to the helmet to protect your face and eyes.
There should be gated access points into the hills or crags where you will be checked by officials to ensure that you have the appropriate training certificates and the correct equipment and clothing, including waterproof clothing, a spare jersey and sandwiches in case the weather changes.
It's high time we removed all risk from the sport.
And about time too! But that's not going far enough, it needs to be extended to include climbing outdoors as well, and should apply to all climbers, not just commercial ventures.
Not only should we be forced to use helmets and a full body harness, but be banned from using any rope less than 11mm. Thinner ropes are more likely to break. Leading and soloing must be banned and only top roping permitted. Bouldering at more than one meter above the ground should not be permitted without a top rope. Anyone belaying should hold a certificate to prove they have been properly trained.
It's time we realised that climbing is dangerous and only the Government and EU can provide adequate protection for us.
These proposals are a step in the right direction, but as I say above they don't go far enough as presently proposed. I also suggest a ban on climbing in just shorts or T shirts due to the risk of grazing your elbows or knees. Knee and elbow protectors like those used by skateboarders need to be phased in, and a visor added to the helmet to protect your face and eyes.
There should be gated access points into the hills or crags where you will be checked by officials to ensure that you have the appropriate training certificates and the correct equipment and clothing, including waterproof clothing, a spare jersey and sandwiches in case the weather changes.
It's high time we removed all risk from the sport.
In reply to cleddy:
But I was referring to Mr.Crawford not to you ! Yours was a long message so I didn't have time to reply .
Effectively the NHS has virtually given up providing free dentistry (and I think optical ) care so large numbers of people are forced to pay for both in the UK .
If , as is inevitable , the old are the most vulnerable to health care costs then couldn't a system be developed whereby the old , if necessary , receive state financed
care but those who can are expected to insure themselves ?
You say that in NZ you get on a very long waiting list .What do you think happens here ? My elderly Aunt will have waited 3 months to see a consultant about what I fear is a serious problem by the time she gets to see him in April .
I caught the very end and read the reviews of a UK documentary on the NHS the other day .The conclusion was that the NHS is worth saving but that everybody, doctors , nurses , managers and patients recognised that the massively rising cost of health care since it was envisaged makes it necessary that people who can are required to contribute to their treatment .
My personal view , and I'm no expert , is that both financing and supply of health care should be much more diverse.There probably needs to be state run hospitals as a safety net , and there certainly needs to be state financing
for the the needy but much more of the supply and the funding could be provided outside the direct control of the state .
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> I wasn't talking about the UK. I was talking about NZ.
>
> I wasn't talking about the UK. I was talking about NZ.
But I was referring to Mr.Crawford not to you ! Yours was a long message so I didn't have time to reply .
>
I don't know anything about the NZ system so I cannot make much comment .However :
Effectively the NHS has virtually given up providing free dentistry (and I think optical ) care so large numbers of people are forced to pay for both in the UK .
If , as is inevitable , the old are the most vulnerable to health care costs then couldn't a system be developed whereby the old , if necessary , receive state financed
care but those who can are expected to insure themselves ?
You say that in NZ you get on a very long waiting list .What do you think happens here ? My elderly Aunt will have waited 3 months to see a consultant about what I fear is a serious problem by the time she gets to see him in April .
I caught the very end and read the reviews of a UK documentary on the NHS the other day .The conclusion was that the NHS is worth saving but that everybody, doctors , nurses , managers and patients recognised that the massively rising cost of health care since it was envisaged makes it necessary that people who can are required to contribute to their treatment .
My personal view , and I'm no expert , is that both financing and supply of health care should be much more diverse.There probably needs to be state run hospitals as a safety net , and there certainly needs to be state financing
for the the needy but much more of the supply and the funding could be provided outside the direct control of the state .
In reply to Jonno:
Dear Jonno
That will be one more reason to climb outdoors.
Norrie
> I see that from 2007 an EU health and safety law kicks in which makes the wearing of helmets and one piece chest and waist harnesses compulsory when engaged in climbing on commercial premises.....Indoor Climbing Walls.
Dear Jonno
That will be one more reason to climb outdoors.
Norrie
In reply to Jonno:
thats stupid! why wear helmets inside unless you an in experienced climber?? i mean there's no risk of falling rocks, gear etc and next to no risk of decking if you use all the clips - so why do you need a helmet?? (smacking your head on the wall when the rope catches you after a fall will only give you abit of a headache!)
thats stupid! why wear helmets inside unless you an in experienced climber?? i mean there's no risk of falling rocks, gear etc and next to no risk of decking if you use all the clips - so why do you need a helmet?? (smacking your head on the wall when the rope catches you after a fall will only give you abit of a headache!)
In reply to all:
Getting back on topic for a sec, I see nobody has come back with a shred of evidence for the original poster's scare story - but nevertheless there's no shortage of people willing to sound off about it!
There is *nothing* about helmets in the new Work at Height regulations, and if you care to search the BMC website for 'work at height' the first result you'll get is this:
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/safety/tech/wah_hse.pdf
which appears to be a measured and reasonable response from the HSE to the 'adventure activities sector' last year, acknowledging our concerns and concluding that "Where activities fall within the remit of a relevant NGB, following the guidance and good practice as identified by the relevant NGB will generally be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the WAHR as drafted."
In other words, unless I'm missing something, the HSE believe that current good practice in activities like climbing is fine and won't be affected by the regulations.
Next scare story please?
Getting back on topic for a sec, I see nobody has come back with a shred of evidence for the original poster's scare story - but nevertheless there's no shortage of people willing to sound off about it!
There is *nothing* about helmets in the new Work at Height regulations, and if you care to search the BMC website for 'work at height' the first result you'll get is this:
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/safety/tech/wah_hse.pdf
which appears to be a measured and reasonable response from the HSE to the 'adventure activities sector' last year, acknowledging our concerns and concluding that "Where activities fall within the remit of a relevant NGB, following the guidance and good practice as identified by the relevant NGB will generally be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the WAHR as drafted."
In other words, unless I'm missing something, the HSE believe that current good practice in activities like climbing is fine and won't be affected by the regulations.
Next scare story please?
In reply to tmh:
I was rather hoping that someone from the BMC would post on this thread to quash the allegation.
But I still think we have to give credit to Jonno for a good troll, he certainly managed to get some people ranting away...
> Getting back on topic for a sec, I see nobody has come back with a shred of evidence for the original poster's scare story - but nevertheless there's no shortage of people willing to sound off about it!
I was rather hoping that someone from the BMC would post on this thread to quash the allegation.
But I still think we have to give credit to Jonno for a good troll, he certainly managed to get some people ranting away...
In reply to Jonno:
Yeah nice piece of sensationalist writing. Really.
We're all slaves to the government, unacceptable laws to be enforced against our will, causing a big uproar in the climbing community.
Get real.
I somehow doubt that, "from 2007 an EU health and safety law kicks in which makes the wearing of helmets and one piece chest and waist harnesses compulsory when engaged in climbing on commercial premises".
2007 is... 2 years away?
I wonder if there MIGHT BE some sort of... CONSULTATION process going on. I wonder if, even... there's a CHANCE THIS MIGHT NOT EVEN HAPPEN.
I wonder if, perhaps, your post is,
COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSH*T?
Yeah nice piece of sensationalist writing. Really.
We're all slaves to the government, unacceptable laws to be enforced against our will, causing a big uproar in the climbing community.
Get real.
I somehow doubt that, "from 2007 an EU health and safety law kicks in which makes the wearing of helmets and one piece chest and waist harnesses compulsory when engaged in climbing on commercial premises".
2007 is... 2 years away?
I wonder if there MIGHT BE some sort of... CONSULTATION process going on. I wonder if, even... there's a CHANCE THIS MIGHT NOT EVEN HAPPEN.
I wonder if, perhaps, your post is,
COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSH*T?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...