The NHS has saved my life. The NHS provides me with therapy and family support and is keeping me alive! I'm proud of our system...OK it has it flaws but if I were to live in the US...I'd be dead! Need I say anymore?
Yep dead - then the obese Republicans would eat you (their cannibals!) and make weapons of your bones and then invade Canada and kill the baby seals and snowmen. Believe me the papers dont show just how bad it really is here. Glad you made it
Well really, Jack, it's no worse than an awful lot of propaganda that's being spout from some Republicans' mouths at the moment :P
I wouldn't get as much support in the US as I do here, almost certainly - and this is backed up by my step-mum, who lived and worked as a nurse in America for a good twenty years or so - my dad is self-employed, because of pre-existing psychiatric conditions, the support I get on my mum's insurance from her work is somewhat severely restricted and neither earn enough to pay for me to receive the level of care I used to get on the NHS.
Anyhow, I suppose it just comes down to different philosophies. I believe that healthcare should be a basic human right, not dependent on whether you happen to be in a decent enough job at the time, whether the economy is struggling at the time, what conditions you'd had before which could limit your access to healthcare. And I'm not particularly liberal, either - I do think that privatisation works in some situations, I think that Thatcher did some good things (as well as bad) for the country - but I do believe that a standard level of care should be accessible for all.
Last edited by Dreaming. : 26-08-2009 at 01:28 AM.
Well I have already posted articles and studies that show not everyone in UK is getting care. On the NHS site they advise cortisone shots for joint pain from sports injuries. They say shots are "safe" and even say a person might need " 2 or more shots" - but the shots have just been cut by NICE from 60,000 to 3,000 (with elders catching the brunt of cuts). Of the 500,000 in UK with dementia issues (Alzheimer's etc) anyone in early or late stages doesn't get drugs. Of course there are the expensive cancer drugs not used. The idea everyone in gov health-care gets treatment is a mirage. A national US service would also see less people getting care.
In Us even if you have a pre-existing you can only be denied for 11 months. If you pay 100 quid a month for 11 months you could get care worth 100,000. If a kid gets real sick like Paws did they would go right to care even without insurance - no local commison tellng parents they have to wait for a bed
The gov doesn't run anything well. The proposed "reform" isn't even called "Health-care reform" anymore but "insurance reform". The proponents don't really know what they are doing. The UK is backing off past "top off" restrictions. Our maniacs now want to put it in play.They see a chance to use problems to grab a quarter of US economy and get into everyone's lives. Doctors here don't like the plan because they will get more work for less money and with a gorilla bureaucracy on their backs telling them what they can and can't do.
Have you not read any of the replies, Jack, about how in spite of this medication not being used, alternate therapies are instead being promoted? Drugs aren't always the answer to everything, and lack of drug distribution =/= lack of care.
Hazel has posted a considerable amount about it earlier in the thread.
And I'm not talking specifically about this reform; I haven't read enough about it, and don't know enough in terms of American politics to make an opinion of it. However, I will fully and completely support the NHS, and tbh. some of the **** that is being spouted from these guys mouths about the NHS is really making me quite angry :P
It's disrespectful to imply that my opinion is due to me being 'winsome'. I have valid, rational reasons to have the opinions I have, which have nothing to do with being naive or innocent, however you phrase it, that's not a 'compliment'. It's a sarcastic, subtle way of undermining my opinion. I'm not an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isoverity
It's silly to say money in US does not go to people who cant afford treatment when the budget for Medicaid and Medicaire (for poor and elderly) was 682 billion dollars in 2008 and 100 million people were using on or the other. Of the "40" million said not to have insurance over 10 million qualify for Medicaid and don't use it. When you say "NONE" of the money goes to needy the reality is Medicaid and medicare actually constitute the largest government expense
I didn't say that no money in the US goes to people who can't afford treatment. I said none of the money that people pay FOR THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE goes to that. And it doesn't. If it went to the government, it would help pay for Medicaid and Medicare but it doesn't. It goes to their insurance company.
As for quoting studies, it's all very well but it doesn't prove that what you say is right. You pick the studies that support your opinion, without considering all the other research. To use the 'rationing' of dementia drugs as an example, there are very good medical reasons that they are not more widely available. First of all, dementia is difficult to diagnose accurately, and the main drugs used to treat Alzheimers have lots of potential side-effects, but no proven benefits for people with other types of dementia, in fact they can make people worse. For those in the earliest stages, the diagnosis is usually uncertain, so drug treatment has more risks than benefits. Secondly, the NICE guidelines for Alzheimers does not recommend drug treatments for people in the severe stages NOT because of cost-effectiveness, but because there's no real evidence that drug treatment is effective for severe Alzheimers.
Reducing the availability of certain drugs is not always cost-related and it's not always a bad thing. Like Jo has said, not getting drugs, doesn't mean not getting care.
Last edited by plastic rose : 26-08-2009 at 01:29 PM.
s a r a h
* pm me * eating disorders info *
"Between two worlds life hovers like a star,
twixt night and morn, upon the horizon's verge."
- Lord Byron
It seems that the opponents of the "health care/insurance reform" are worried about the government taking more control of health. Can somebody American (probably jack :P) explain why this is such a bad thing?
I love Alcohol Induced Altruism(Laura) I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence - Doug McLeod Those who believe in absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
Have you not read any of the replies, Jack, about how in spite of this medication not being used, alternate therapies are instead being promoted? Drugs aren't always the answer to everything, and lack of drug distribution =/= lack of care.
Hazel has posted a considerable amount about it earlier in the thread.
And I'm not talking specifically about this reform; I haven't read enough about it, and don't know enough in terms of American politics to make an opinion of it. However, I will fully and completely support the NHS, and tbh. some of the **** that is being spouted from these guys mouths about the NHS is really making me quite angry :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaming.
Have you not read any of the replies, Jack, about how in spite of this medication not being used, alternate therapies are instead being promoted? Drugs aren't always the answer to everything, and lack of drug distribution =/= lack of care.
Hazel has posted a considerable amount about it earlier in the thread.
And I'm not talking specifically about this reform; I haven't read enough about it, and don't know enough in terms of American politics to make an opinion of it. However, I will fully and completely support the NHS, and tbh. some of the **** that is being spouted from these guys mouths about the NHS is really making me quite angry :P
If people want to use acupuncture that's fine. I once got a shoulder impingement in the gym lifting 24 stone and a cortisone shot worked like a charm. I have nothing against alternative therapies - I just dont want something like NICE saying "ok no more of treatment A - now you can have B or C". Of course NICE isn't basing it decisions on effectiveness anyway but on costs.
Today I am reading UK media about shortage of midwives and hospital beds.
"The report quoted one midwife in London as saying: “There is a relentless need for beds day and night.” Another added: “We have a workforce who do an awful lot of overtime and it is uncontrolled.”
Teams from Yorkshire and the Humber and the North East argued that safety was compromised by staff shortages, a problem that was made worse by the introduction of the European working time directive, which limits doctors to a 48-hour working week from this month."
That's from the Times
Shortage of NHS midwives is barrier to safety of mothers and babies
"Of course Daily Mail has a version as well and writes of women givng birth in lifts and offices saying "Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in some areas.
Mr Lansley said: 'New mothers should not be being put through the trauma of having to give birth in such inappropriate places."
Now I can understand costs can get out-of-hand but in past four years NHS Bureaucracy (Not the medical staff) has grown by 80%.
"NHS spending on backroom staff and management consultants has increased by more than 80 per cent in just four years, new figures have revealed.
Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) shelled out £1.2bn on administrative and clerical staff in 2008, up from the £530m they spent in 2004. It has led to accusations that the Government has broken a pledge to tackle the costs of bureaucracy within the health service.
Spending on management consultants by PCTs has tripled to £139m since 2004, according to figures released in response to a Parliamentary Question. PCTs were also found to be spending £115m a year on hiring agency administrative and clerical staff, more than twice the amount spent in 2004. However, the outlay on administrative staff working within hospitals had fallen by nine per cent since 2004."
That sort of thing is what government run agencies do. They grow the bureaucracy at the expense of the care etc. In private ownership care-givers have incentives to keep administrative costs low while keeping care quality higher.
Don't be upset about health-care debate. For whatever people are taking the debate personal as if criticism of NHS is a personal criticism. I think media has encouraged that for sensationalism. The real debate isn't really about the NHS but about gov. control of things. People in US don't like bureaucracies and instinctively don't trust them. This is why the proposed care "reforms" and those advocating them are crashing in the polls.
It seems that the opponents of the "health care/insurance reform" are worried about the government taking more control of health. Can somebody American (probably jack :P) explain why this is such a bad thing?
All the health agencies the gov manages are already out of control. Medicaid and Medicare are heading for insolvency (they spend about £300 bn). Instead of fixing those problems they want to start another health-care agency that will swallow the first 2 up. Advocates say this will bring costs down but its not true. The government office that keeps track of costs (and its staffed by the same political party advocating the new plan) said costs will rise dramatically. That comes as a surprise to no one.
Government does everything at greater cost and lower quality. The bureaucracy itself becomes the main focus of those in it. The proposed plan was kept vague intentionally so as to minimize contentious debate. However reading the plan it's apparent the gove wants to hire thousands of new employees that will be sent to peoples homes to "advise" and check up on child rearing, senior care etc. They also eventually want (as does NHS) a database on all people and their medical conditions/history. The ways all these things can be abused are too numerous to go into.
If people in governement were really concerned about costs etc they would minimize the legal hassles that presently see 7 out of 10 baby doctors getting sued. Their malpractice insurance costs can be £100 thousand a year. Estimates are that defensive medicine costs are over £100 bn a year (the cost of the NHS for a year) and maybe as high as £300 bn a year. Yet the politicians purposely avoid legal reforms because trail lawyers donate the most money to them
That highlights my point that the "reform" of health-care has nothing to do with care but about expanding gov control and power. The health-care industries make up 25% of US economy. Once gov takes them over the gov. will be directly centered in peoples lives and all kinds of programs, regulations and intrusions will follow (I already know what some of them will be but again they are too numerous).
One expression that sums up the problem is "any government that can give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have". New health-care proposals do not address causes of problems. They create another level in the ponzi scheme where real answers to problems are deferred in order to keep votes and money flowing in the same direction at the expense of peoples well being.
All the health agencies the gov manages are already out of control. Medicaid and Medicare are heading for insolvency (they spend about £300 bn). Instead of fixing those problems they want to start another health-care agency that will swallow the first 2 up. Advocates say this will bring costs down but its not true. The government office that keeps track of costs (and its staffed by the same political party advocating the new plan) said costs will rise dramatically. That comes as a surprise to no one.
Government does everything at greater cost and lower quality. The bureaucracy itself becomes the main focus of those in it. The proposed plan was kept vague intentionally so as to minimize contentious debate. However reading the plan it's apparent the gove wants to hire thousands of new employees that will be sent to peoples homes to "advise" and check up on child rearing, senior care etc. They also eventually want (as does NHS) a database on all people and their medical conditions/history. The ways all these things can be abused are too numerous to go into.
If people in governement were really concerned about costs etc they would minimize the legal hassles that presently see 7 out of 10 baby doctors getting sued. Their malpractice insurance costs can be £100 thousand a year. Estimates are that defensive medicine costs are over £100 bn a year (the cost of the NHS for a year) and maybe as high as £300 bn a year. Yet the politicians purposely avoid legal reforms because trail lawyers donate the most money to them
That highlights my point that the "reform" of health-care has nothing to do with care but about expanding gov control and power. The health-care industries make up 25% of US economy. Once gov takes them over the gov. will be directly centered in peoples lives and all kinds of programs, regulations and intrusions will follow (I already know what some of them will be but again they are too numerous).
One expression that sums up the problem is "any government that can give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have". New health-care proposals do not address causes of problems. They create another level in the ponzi scheme where real answers to problems are deferred in order to keep votes and money flowing in the same direction at the expense of peoples well being.
If they swallow up those two organisations and presumably that will include a bail out to clear the debts? I don't really see how that is a bad thing, if they are failing and need the money then reform is surely what it needs? If the argument is that they already covered those without insurance then they needed to be saved. If in doing so you can increase their cover and possibly cut costs then more power to them. Maybe it wont solve everything but i think it is a positive step.
Is there any evidence that government does everything at greater cost and less quality. You say everything, so i will assume you mean everything the government does could be done cheaper and better by private companies either that or you have chosen your words badly. I think there is underlying fear of nationalisation in most of the arguments given by the opponents. Something that probably lies in the fear of "communism" as if the idea of communism is somehow evil. Communist governments have done some atrocious things there can be no argument but most governments at one time or another have, especially capitalist ones such as the US and the UK but i digress.
I think arguing about cost is slightly arbitary anyway, obviously you don't want to waste money but this kind of thing is not going to cost chicken feed. Not if you want to get it right. I think generally people are happy to pay a little extra tax if it means better schools, hospitals and public services. You also have a benefit of having somebody to complain to if the system is failing if it is government run, you have the oppotunity to make your feelings known through your democratic right to vote.
I think it is probably unwise to compare the situation in the UK's NHS to the US anyway. People here have been used to the NHS for so long that most people use it. In the US the situation is reversed most people already have insurance so a national healthcare system would at least to start off with only have to deal with those who are uninsured. Which is probably comparitively fewer than in the UK.
I still don't fully understand what you are afraid of.
I love Alcohol Induced Altruism(Laura) I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence - Doug McLeod Those who believe in absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
Well you've always been clear about your resentments and when you compare communist govs to US and UK then there is a bizzare twist to the discussion that I know better than to pursue
Well you've always been clear about your resentments and when you compare communist govs to US and UK then there is a bizzare twist to the discussion that I know better than to pursue
I'll grant you it wasn't exactly on topic and i am guilty of digressing to the max when i get going. I think it is vaguely relevant though because i think the fear national health care is driven by a fear of socialism and communism.
I love Alcohol Induced Altruism(Laura) I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence - Doug McLeod Those who believe in absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
Anyhow, I suppose it just comes down to different philosophies. I believe that healthcare should be a basic human right, not dependent on whether you happen to be in a decent enough job at the time, whether the economy is struggling at the time, what conditions you'd had before which could limit your access to healthcare. And I'm not particularly liberal, either - I do think that privatisation works in some situations, I think that Thatcher did some good things (as well as bad) for the country - but I do believe that a standard level of care should be accessible for all.
It most certainly does. Just curious on your interpetation, not dismissing any philosophy, but how does someone have an innate right to healthcare? I would contest any form of positive rights (rights given by governments oppose to rights protected by governments/negative rights) because the only way for governments to give such a right would be to take from others. So should people have the right to other people's labor/money? Do people have the right to a doctor's labor? or to the tax payers money to compensate for this doctor's labor?
Also you believe "a standard level of care should be accessible for all," how exactly would you propose that given cost? Seeing as you agree with (some) privatization, would you not agree competition within a free market allows for price reduction and more accessibility? How does a government run health program account for reducing prices and increasing accessibility when it would have no competition and no market incentive. Instead, the program simply just takes more in taxes, goes further in deficiet financing, or (through government) prints more money to cover it's debt. No doubtably something is wrong with the American system, but I'd say it's regulation interfering with competition and the free market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarrelO'Crazy
I'll grant you it wasn't exactly on topic and i am guilty of digressing to the max when i get going. I think it is vaguely relevant though because i think the fear national health care is driven by a fear of socialism and communism.
I wouldn't so much say it's a fear of socialism or communism, but a complete disagreement with those theories. It's more a fear of the end results that accompany said theories, and disagreement in economics. I don't think proponents of government run healthcare understand economics. Medicare, the NHS, all similar programs are completely broke, beyond broke even into debt; how anyone could say they work is beyond me. These proposed systems can only work for so long, and then you run out of everyone's money and it ends up being worse for everyone in the long run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarrelO'Crazy
Is there any evidence that government does everything at greater cost and less quality. You say everything, so i will assume you mean everything the government does could be done cheaper and better by private companies either that or you have chosen your words badly. I think there is underlying fear of nationalisation in most of the arguments given by the opponents. Something that probably lies in the fear of "communism" as if the idea of communism is somehow evil. Communist governments have done some atrocious things there can be no argument but most governments at one time or another have, especially capitalist ones such as the US and the UK but i digress.
For one, governments cannot produce anything. Any capital they have is either taken out of the productive society, at a net loss for private citizens through taxation, or printed fiat money which then debases currency and again steals from the people. How can government do anything better or cheaper by stealing from individuals, there is always the net loss even if government then subsidies their 'product' to a cheaper price. And then there is empirical evidence through anything the government does. Name one successful government program. Amtrak, medicare, SS, the NHS all broke. The government has no market incentives, no competition, no cost-benefit anaylsis. It can go into the red without problem unlike any real business because it owns the printing press and the ability to tax.
I think the fear is about loss of control and freedom, which occurs under communism, but I wouldn't say the theory is the main cause of concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarrelO'Crazy
I think arguing about cost is slightly arbitary anyway, obviously you don't want to waste money but this kind of thing is not going to cost chicken feed. Not if you want to get it right. I think generally people are happy to pay a little extra tax if it means better schools, hospitals and public services. You also have a benefit of having somebody to complain to if the system is failing if it is government run, you have the oppotunity to make your feelings known through your democratic right to vote.
I would say cost is essential. Money and resources aren't unlimited, regardless to how many people want to idolize Keynes. You have to have an economically viable system, or it won't work. You can only go into the red for so long until it collapses and much more harm comes from it. You can only tax and debase currency for so long until it reaches a point of no return. People may be willing to pay more taxes for better services, but even as their taxes increase, they aren't likely to get better service. It's unsustainable in the long run.
Also, that last sentence has to be a joke. Nothing changes in government. You have much more of a chance complaining to customer service at a private company because they actually have to satisfy their customers to stay in business instead of just taking people's money and running deficiets like the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarrelO'Crazy
I still don't fully understand what you are afraid of.
More control in the hands of the government, less in the hands of people, and a loss of freedom.
I don't think proponents of government run healthcare understand economics. Medicare, the NHS, all similar programs are completely broke, beyond broke even into debt; how anyone could say they work is beyond me. These proposed systems can only work for so long, and then you run out of everyone's money and it ends up being worse for everyone in the long run.
OK this is exactly the thing that I and a lot of other people in the UK are getting sick of. The NHS does work, I've used it, my parents have used it, my friends have used it and from what i can see here many people on here have used it and we are happy with it for the most part. Sometimes it doesn't work as well as it could, there are problems of course there are but we live with it and generally it works fine when you consider its funding and the amount of work it has to cope with. For all its flaws its still there for everyone and it is still rated far above the better funded US system by the world health organisation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamofunity
For one, governments cannot produce anything. Any capital they have is either taken out of the productive society, at a net loss for private citizens through taxation, or printed fiat money which then debases currency and again steals from the people. How can government do anything better or cheaper by stealing from individuals, there is always the net loss even if government then subsidies their 'product' to a cheaper price. And then there is empirical evidence through anything the government does. Name one successful government program. Amtrak, medicare, SS, the NHS all broke. The government has no market incentives, no competition, no cost-benefit analysis. It can go into the red without problem unlike any real business because it owns the printing press and the ability to tax.
What is the problem with a society that has money for its own healthcare paying a little extra tax to help those that can't afford to? seems a little selfish to deny them that. I assume you are judging sucess as in making money? I might be mistaken but i was under the impression that health care was about making people better and caring for them not about making a good profit.
Surely healthcare is a right of every citizen of what is supposedly the leader of the free world? There are certain things in the modern world that a citizen of a devoloped country expects to be provided for it. In the UK and most other european countries healthcare would be included in that. I daresay that if they privatised the fire service in US there would be outrage, but it is the same principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamofunity
I would say cost is essential. Money and resources aren't unlimited, regardless to how many people want to idolize Keynes. You have to have an economically viable system, or it won't work. You can only go into the red for so long until it collapses and much more harm comes from it. You can only tax and debase currency for so long until it reaches a point of no return. People may be willing to pay more taxes for better services, but even as their taxes increase, they aren't likely to get better service. It's unsustainable in the long run.
I didn't say that money and resources were unlimited but giving everyone the same basic right of care when they are sick is going to cost money. If it is possible for less rich countries such as the UK (not that we are poor by any stretch of the imagination) to provide such a service craps as you may all think it is, then it should be no problem for the worlds only super power to do
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamofunity
Also, that last sentence has to be a joke. Nothing changes in government. You have much more of a chance complaining to customer service at a private company because they actually have to satisfy their customers to stay in business instead of just taking people's money and running deficiets like the government.
It was no joke, i believe in the power of the vote, it might not change things but the point is you can kick up a fuss about it. Private companies just want to make money they don't actually care about the people they serve. Anyway I'd have though american is an example of how government CAN change. I don't think the idiot oil barrons puppet of a president that has been in power there for the last 8 years would have made such proposals. Obama is a breath of fresh air and from the outside appears to be making a lot of sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamofunity
More control in the hands of the government, less in the hands of people, and a loss of freedom.
How is it a loss of freedom? surely you'll still be free to choose whether you want to pay for health insurance or not. I think i'm right in saying that a lot more freedoms were lost in the patriot act brought in by the previous administration to fight terrorism. I'm orry but i don't really see what power you'll be handing to the government by allowing them to take care of more of its citizens.
I love Alcohol Induced Altruism(Laura) I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence - Doug McLeod Those who believe in absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
OK this is exactly the thing that I and a lot of other people in the UK are getting sick of. The NHS does work, I've used it, my parents have used it, my friends have used it and from what i can see here many people on here have used it and we are happy with it for the most part. Sometimes it doesn't work as well as it could, there are problems of course there are but we live with it and generally it works fine when you consider its funding and the amount of work it has to cope with. For all its flaws its still there for everyone and it is still rated far above the better funded US system by the world health organisation.
How does a program that runs a £1.2 billion deficit in 2006 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...its-1.2bn.html) work? Any other business, any other product, any other program that wasn't government (that gets it's money from taxation/theft and printing money/theft) run would be out of business in a heartbeat. Eventually all that money, the continuous years of deficit financing, has to be paid, again either by taxation or debacing the currency, which your kids will have to pay for. I don't understand how anyone can claim that the program works when it is so evidently economically unviable. Sure people get decent service now, but that won't last forever when other countries/central banks are no longer willing to borrow out to such high deficits. It's economically unsustainable, only setting up for a bigger collapse in coming time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarrelO'Crazy
What is the problem with a society that has money for its own healthcare paying a little extra tax to help those that can't afford to? seems a little selfish to deny them that. I assume you are judging sucess as in making money? I might be mistaken but i was under the impression that health care was about making people better and caring for them not about making a good profit.
Well, I generally disagree with the process of taxation to begin with, but that's a topic for a whole other thread. Healthcare is not about making a profit, but it is a product and service that should be offered in the market, of which you can't go continuously further in an economic black hole and somehow think that is sustainable long term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarrelO'Crazy
Surely healthcare is a right of every citizen of what is supposedly the leader of the free world? There are certain things in the modern world that a citizen of a devoloped country expects to be provided for it. In the UK and most other european countries healthcare would be included in that. I daresay that if they privatised the fire service in US there would be outrage, but it is the same principle.
No, it's not. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is as much as I would go. You have the right to work hard and pay for services you use here, to be compensated for your labor, even if you're a doctor, and not by stolen funds but on a voluntary basis. What we should have the right to purchase insurance over state lines, not have mandates that force people in certain states to pay for obsesity, smoking, pregnancy, chemical dependency, etc, coverage when they're an average sized, non-smoking, non-pregnant, sober individual, and all the other ridiculous limitations sets on individuals, insurance companies, and health service providers. Government should get out of the way, not entrench itself in it even more.
I would love for the fire services to be privatized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarrelO'Crazy
I didn't say that money and resources were unlimited but giving everyone the same basic right of care when they are sick is going to cost money. If it is possible for less rich countries such as the UK (not that we are poor by any stretch of the imagination) to provide such a service craps as you may all think it is, then it should be no problem for the worlds only super power to do.
You didn't, but the majority of people that run Washington do. I don't know if you realized it or not, but the U.S. is completely broke. As is the UK I believe. If China wanted to call in our debt, we could be on our knees in about an hour. The proposed 10 year deficit is 9 trillion dollars, which is always a low guesstimate. We have no money. Obama says he'll only pass a healthcare reform that won't add any money to the deficit or national debt, but every citizen knows this is bullshit encompanied with his no higher taxes pledge because the only way to do that is to raise our taxes or debace the currency (which they're doing heavily already) and even then he probably couldn't raise them enough to pay for the ideas proposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarrelO'Crazy
It was no joke, i believe in the power of the vote, it might not change things but the point is you can kick up a fuss about it. Private companies just want to make money they don't actually care about the people they serve. Anyway I'd have though american is an example of how government CAN change. I don't think the idiot oil barrons puppet of a president that has been in power there for the last 8 years would have made such proposals. Obama is a breath of fresh air and from the outside appears to be making a lot of sense.
I don't know if you've been paying much attention to American politics recently, but nothing substantial has changed since the election. Continuous wars, unmanned bombing in Pakistan, prolonged detention and no serious investiations into torture, not completely closing gitmo, more stimulus programs, more government spending, bailouts, usage of patriot act, etc. I'm not a fan of Bush by any means, but I dare say Obama is very similar in policy, slightly different in rhetoric. They are both puppets to special interests, Obama just amps up government spending and acts like Bush on steroids in economic terms, which pisses off so called (fiscal) conservatives since they hate government spending unless it's spending is for killing people oversea, which is why you see the 'tea party' movements and the whole start of this thread.
I'm not a fan of Republican propaganda spread around, but I'm not a fan of government run healthcare either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarrelO'Crazy
How is it a loss of freedom? surely you'll still be free to choose whether you want to pay for health insurance or not. I think i'm right in saying that a lot more freedoms were lost in the patriot act brought in by the previous administration to fight terrorism. I'm orry but i don't really see what power you'll be handing to the government by allowing them to take care of more of its citizens.
You can't complete with the government. They own the stadium, they're the referee, they make all the rules, and they don't have to worry about cost. It would essentially force most people to go on the plan after they subsidies companies for choosing it, and most people get their insurance through their employer. It allows government to control what medical procedures are suitable, what drugs can be used, what surgery is necessary when, etc, and essentially removing the doctor-patient relationship and patient choice in medical procedures.
I'd say you're right with reference to the patriot act and war on terror, but neither are being ended or dealt with any better with this administration. Healthcare is just another thing added on that is adding fuel to an already pissed off nation. If Obama ended both wars, brought all our men home from overseas in the 135 countries, stopped bailing out companies, stopped stimulus spending, and somehow was able to somewhat balance our budget, I'd definitly consider such a healthcare option if the government felt it had to do something. I'd much rather have government healthcare than an empire, however given none of that is going to happen and we don't have any money, I'd rather have just an empire than both given both are destructive in economic terms.
