British NHS

[alanrim]

Just wondered what the view over the pond was on the current social care debate in the US. Here is a quote from a UK blog which pretty much sums up my view.


Quote from Talking Politics - Yahoo! News UK

"The angry opponents of Obama's reforms would do well to actually have a debate, rather than spew out foolish lies. The death panel accusation is not politics. It is just a lie. That's all it is. It has no place in political discourse. It's not even worthy of childhood discourse. It should be considered outside of acceptable debate, like racism or physical violence. That right-wing pundits and insurance companies are free to promote this nonsense is a damning indictment on the entire system. Personally, I'd be fairly indifferent, and wouldn't deign to comment on another country's way of doing things, were it not for the fact that they're now telling lies about the NHS, and that is intolerable.

Upsettingly, I have some sympathy for the philosophical origin of many of the argument used by Obama's opponents, in that they originate from a suspicion of government. Government and the state (which are not as distinct in reality as academics will tell you) are together the most dangerous organisation in the world. The American mentality lies in a never-ending attempt to limit government to the smallest possible size. Quite right too. Unfortunately, I'm equally suspicious of the private sector, which, by definition, does not allow for democratic control of power. It's my suspicion of the state and the private sector which ensures, by the way, that I have no political allegiances whatsoever.

But the philosophical argument for limiting government is based on freedom - freedom from state intrusion into our lives. To apply this to universal healthcare is very sloppy thinking.

Freedom applies to all, not just the rich. The freedom of a rich man to pay less tax does not overrule the freedom of the poor to live. This is such an obvious point that no civilised human being should ever need to have it explained to them. It appears they do.

Besides, basic human decency makes a debate over 'socialised healthcare', as the American right calls it, utterly irrelevant. If healthcare isn't a right - rather than a privilege - then I don't know what is. Healthcare isn't a Turkish delight chocolate bar, or a Jacuzzi. Healthcare is life.

Britons are a grumpy and irritable lot. I'm just the same. Whenever I sit in a dinner in America, I end up visibly shuddering in the wake of the meaningless, friendly noises churning endlessly from the person serving me. But we should occasionally take a little look around and realise the things that are great about our country. The NHS is one of those things. It is the cornerstone of Britain. It is the beating, human heart of this country.

The American right is correct. It is socialist. Nothing could be more socialist. It suits Marx's moral maxim perfectly: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. In this case, the ability is the ability to pay, and the need is the need of care. It is not, in actual fact, the state or the government which is responsible for the NHS. It is us. We pay for it. We use it. The state is merely a prism through which the money and the care must pass. The NHS is us taking care of each other.

We live in a mixed economy. We aim to have enough free market to control the state, and provide the things we want. But we also need enough socialism to ensure we do not live like savages, the weakest amongst us starving to death on the street while a rich woman buys a Gucci handbag. Socialism without capitalism turns to tyranny. Capitalism without socialism turns to barbarism.

The sooner Americans realise the truth of a mixed economy, the better their world will become. In the meantime, their right-wing pundits should learn from the NHS, not mock it."

 

[wrightme43]

Hello, and welcome. This will need to be moved to the underground politics section where we will be glad to discuss this at length with you. Please please read the rules.

I am going to hand you, your butt on this one though. Nothing personal but there are several very very wrongheaded notions in your post that need to be addressed and can not be won in debate.

 

[wrightme43]

Just wondered what the view over the pond was on the current social care debate in the US. Here is a quote from a UK blog which pretty much sums up my view.


Quote from Talking Politics - Yahoo! News UK

"The angry opponents of Obama's reforms would do well to actually have a debate, rather than spew out foolish lies. The death panel accusation is not politics. It is just a lie. That's all it is. It has no place in political discourse. It's not even worthy of childhood discourse. It should be considered outside of acceptable debate, like racism or physical violence. That right-wing pundits and insurance companies are free to promote this nonsense is a damning indictment on the entire system. Personally, I'd be fairly indifferent, and wouldn't deign to comment on another country's way of doing things, were it not for the fact that they're now telling lies about the NHS, and that is intolerable.

Upsettingly, I have some sympathy for the philosophical origin of many of the argument used by Obama's opponents, in that they originate from a suspicion of government. Government and the state (which are not as distinct in reality as academics will tell you) are together the most dangerous organisation in the world. The American mentality lies in a never-ending attempt to limit government to the smallest possible size. Quite right too. Unfortunately, I'm equally suspicious of the private sector, which, by definition, does not allow for democratic control of power. It's my suspicion of the state and the private sector which ensures, by the way, that I have no political allegiances whatsoever.

But the philosophical argument for limiting government is based on freedom - freedom from state intrusion into our lives. To apply this to universal healthcare is very sloppy thinking.

Freedom applies to all, not just the rich. The freedom of a rich man to pay less tax does not overrule the freedom of the poor to live. This is such an obvious point that no civilised human being should ever need to have it explained to them. It appears they do.

Besides, basic human decency makes a debate over 'socialised healthcare', as the American right calls it, utterly irrelevant. If healthcare isn't a right - rather than a privilege - then I don't know what is. Healthcare isn't a Turkish delight chocolate bar, or a Jacuzzi. Healthcare is life.

Britons are a grumpy and irritable lot. I'm just the same. Whenever I sit in a dinner in America, I end up visibly shuddering in the wake of the meaningless, friendly noises churning endlessly from the person serving me. But we should occasionally take a little look around and realise the things that are great about our country. The NHS is one of those things. It is the cornerstone of Britain. It is the beating, human heart of this country.

The American right is correct. It is socialist. Nothing could be more socialist. It suits Marx's moral maxim perfectly: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. In this case, the ability is the ability to pay, and the need is the need of care. It is not, in actual fact, the state or the government which is responsible for the NHS. It is us. We pay for it. We use it. The state is merely a prism through which the money and the care must pass. The NHS is us taking care of each other.

We live in a mixed economy. We aim to have enough free market to control the state, and provide the things we want. But we also need enough socialism to ensure we do not live like savages, the weakest amongst us starving to death on the street while a rich woman buys a Gucci handbag. Socialism without capitalism turns to tyranny. Capitalism without socialism turns to barbarism.

The sooner Americans realise the truth of a mixed economy, the better their world will become. In the meantime, their right-wing pundits should learn from the NHS, not mock it."

This was not posted in UP and is a freebie. Thread was moved.

 

[wrightme43]

The angry opponents of Obama's reforms would do well to actually have a debate, rather than spew out foolish lies.

^ This sets the tone. The anger comes from several factors. 1. that any debate is being stifled. 2. That normal American citizens that disagree vocally after being stifled are being called mobs, militias, right wing zealots, and compared to terrorists and being ignored by our elected representives and a lapdog media. 3. that the bill is being rushed thru with no understanding of its implications.

The death panel accusation is not politics. It is just a lie. That's all it is. It has no place in political discourse. It's not even worthy of childhood discourse. It should be considered outside of acceptable debate, like racism or physical violence. That right-wing pundits and insurance companies are free to promote this nonsense is a damning indictment on the entire system.

^ ok this one is special This is a blatent bought lie.

Read this. Hell just read page 3. http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/redirect-safely.php?fname=../pdffiles/phprW.pdf

Yep that was Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein right there. Still believe them?????

 

[wrightme43]

Personally, I'd be fairly indifferent, and wouldn't deign to comment on another country's way of doing things, were it not for the fact that they're now telling lies about the NHS, and that is intolerable.
^^^

Just one recent example of the consquences of government run healthcare. The fact is that this number is severely underreported.
Death toll from hospital bugs hits new high - Telegraph
So is your country telling lies or are those who point out its failings and say hey this is not what I want.

 

[wrightme43]

Freedom applies to all, not just the rich. The freedom of a rich man to pay less tax does not overrule the freedom of the poor to live. This is such an obvious point that no civilised human being should ever need to have it explained to them. It appears they do.
^^^ This is a strawman argument.
It has nothing to do with nationalized heathcare. The government can not give anything to anyone without taking it from another person. (very very ineffciently I might add but that if for another post)

 

[wrightme43]

I am going to stop here, but I will be glad to continue if you feel like debating the article you have posted. I may come back in a while, just got to get Trin ready for school.

 

[alanrim]

Thanks for moving to the right section.

The NHS has failings, no one could deny that, but it is a corner stone of the UK.

It means that I can go out on my FZ and not worry about being able to pay for an ambulance, and the doctors to put me back together, or the long term cost of therapy. It means that the Asthma I have suffered for many years is treated without paying a loaded insurance, or being excluded from the insurance.

In the UK we have a choice, everyone has the right to receive treatment, if you feel you want extra services then you pay for health insurance, and you get the benefits for that choice. But you also get the benefit of being treated by the NHS without question if you have an heart attack, get cancer, or any of the other multitude of things that can happen during your life.

Seems also that people from the UK have been used in ads designed to show the NHS in bad light, from reports of interviews with them after it would appear that their comments had been taken out of context, or used in a way that had not been made clear to them.

 

[wrightme43]

Besides, basic human decency makes a debate over 'socialised healthcare', as the American right calls it, utterly irrelevant. If healthcare isn't a right - rather than a privilege - then I don't know what is. Healthcare isn't a Turkish delight chocolate bar, or a Jacuzzi. Healthcare is life.
^^^^


This is where it goes way way way off.

Rights are items that exist without government. Governments are instiuted among men to look out for, and protect rights.
One of the basic tenents of a right is that it exists with out taking something from another person.
For socialised heathcare to work, it must take from some to give to others. Therefore it fails the first tenet of a right.

 

[Cuba]

I'm still riding in the back but I will say that the opinion stated as fact in this article is something that most Americans disagree with. We don't have Americans starving in the streets and we don't turn them away from our hospitals. Then again we don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on treatments for those that do not have health insurance either. I think sentiment that the majority of Americans hold on issues of entitlements can be seen in our nation parks. Signs that read "Do not feed the animals" are there for a very clear reason, it is because those animals become reliant on scraps handed out by people and lose their ability to hunt and survive on their own. Most Americans believe that we have an obligation to support those that can't support themselves, but we are dead set against supporting those that won't. Health insurance should be more affordable, costs should be reduced, waste eliminated, tort reform, increased competition, portability, better prevention and efficient screenings, but the answer is not to shove 50 million people (the majority of which are either illegal aliens, people that can afford it but made the choice not to buy health insurance for themselves, or are people that are already eligible for medicare but not enrolled) into an already unsustainable system at the expense of those of us that work and pay our dues. The administration has quite recently signalled that they are abandoning their plans for a public option, so perhaps the argument is mute. White House ready to accept health co-ops? - White House- msnbc.com

Here's a bit of a rebuttal on the concept of the government run single payer system, from the head of the Canadian Medical Association:

The Canadian Press: Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

 

[wrightme43]

A doctor responds to Obama's NYT op-ed

G. Wesley Clark, MD
[FONT=times new roman,times]Mr. President, I just read your op-ed in the New York Times. You must either be incredibly ignorant (e.g., pediatricians performing tonsillectomies, surgeons being paid $50,000 for an amputation), or else you believe that Americans are incredibly stupid.

[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]You justify a hasty and massive healthcare "reform" to save money, by spending an additional trillion dollars. You would fix a "broken" and broke Medicare system by adding another 47 million beneficiaries to government programs while arguing this will reduce overall costs. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]I've itemized your inaccurate claims, with my comments in italics.[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]You assert that your healthcare reform will:
[/FONT]

• <LI itxtvisited="1">[FONT=times new roman,times]Force insurance companies to insure pre-existing conditions. That's like allowing bettors to wait till after the race has been run, to place their bets. That won't cut costs.[/FONT] <LI itxtvisited="1">[FONT=times new roman,times]Eliminate lifetime limits on coverage. Unlimited lifetime coverages must increase premiums to pay for them and will raise total costs.[/FONT] <LI itxtvisited="1">[FONT=times new roman,times]Require insurance companies to pay for routine examinations, preventive care, and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. Once again, how can you be insured against a sure thing? The only way my company can pay for a colonoscopy is to add enough onto the premium to pay for it, plus their overhead.[/FONT] <LI itxtvisited="1">[FONT=times new roman,times]Make Medicare more efficient, so tax dollars won't enrich insurance companies. Insurance companies do not derive income from Medicare, because it is a federal program. Incidentally, its costs per patient have increased much faster than private insurance. [/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]Cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. These programs have been in effect over 40 years -- and I've seen the waste and inefficiency for most of that interval. Did you just find out about the waste and inefficiency now, and why hasn't something already been done about it?[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]You claim that:[/FONT]

• <LI itxtvisited="1">[FONT=times new roman,times]"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." But didn't you just imply this week that Medicare Advantage subsidizes insurance companies and should be eliminated to save money?[/FONT] <LI itxtvisited="1">[FONT=times new roman,times]"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." But large numbers of doctors have indicated that they will quit or retire if this plan is enacted[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]"You will not be waiting in any lines." Maybe you won't but we will. Your plan will add up to 47 million new insureds, with no increase in the supply of primary care physicians that are already in short supply. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]We physicians live with our healthcare system, all day and every day. We care about being able to heal. We hate disputing with insurance companies, and especially with government bureaucrats. Certainly changes in insurance practices are needed, and would have occurred long ago, absent a government record of 60 years of meddling with the market. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]As you say, "...let's disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations" such as those in your op-ed, "that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed."[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]And I agree, this is about America's future: whether Americans will remain free, or be ruled by an increasingly intrusive and authoritarian statist government.[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]G. Wesley Clark, MD [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times](Doctor Clark is not related to the retired general of the same name)[/FONT]

 

[alanrim]

We are so different when it comes to social matters, gun laws, health care, etc.

Your holiday entitlement brought up the other week surprised me.

On my visits to USA to work on equipment I built/supplied and as a consultant surprised me, many companies I dealt with sort of embraced technology, but in a weird way, the factories had way too much manning for levels of work required. Technology that could operate with minimal operator interaction had a dedicated operator.

So far I can see what Obama is up against, and from the reactions we are seeing reported this side of the pond he don't have much chance of getting it through.

Us brits like to complain about our country but boy I am glad to be a part of Europe and not the 51st State, which is weird as I don't like the European Union and we may complain about the NHS but when outsiders start twisting the truth to their own ends you will find us brits will defend it to the hilt.

 

[alanrim]

And slightly off topic but why don't posts here get an email or appear on the home page ?

 

[wrightme43]

And slightly off topic but why don't posts here get an email or appear on the home page ?

Because some people wanted the whole topic of politics banned alltogther. Others of us fought very hard against that. Then those people wanted it not to show up on the front page, so now it doesnt.

 

[wrightme43]

We are so different when it comes to social matters, gun laws, health care, etc.

Your holiday entitlement brought up the other week surprised me.

On my visits to USA to work on equipment I built/supplied and as a consultant surprised me, many companies I dealt with sort of embraced technology, but in a weird way, the factories had way too much manning for levels of work required. Technology that could operate with minimal operator interaction had a dedicated operator.

So far I can see what Obama is up against, and from the reactions we are seeing reported this side of the pond he don't have much chance of getting it through.

Us brits like to complain about our country but boy I am glad to be a part of Europe and not the 51st State, which is weird as I don't like the European Union and we may complain about the NHS but when outsiders start twisting the truth to their own ends you will find us brits will defend it to the hilt.

See it is a very very big subject. Not only is it directly contrary to the Federal governments assigned powers in the constition, it is not being presented in a truthful light at all.

The actual real live president is lying (either intentionally or thru a very base ignorance I do not believe him capable of of) about what is offered, what the costs today are, and is using falsehoods to promote what amounts to the socialization of another huge chunk of our economy.

 

[Soap]

The NHS is a great system, it is. But the problem with most things are people and the continuous need to cost cut, the government put money in and the NHS trusts start budgeting and reducing numbers, how that works I will never know.

And the original post is correct, we British are a grumpy lot, namely me!