America calls England's NHS service "evil" after Obama's latest proposal to change healthcare system

Recommended Videos

yosophat

New member
Apr 15, 2009
268
0
0
Seriously American Health insurance companies are extremely greedy, the largest companies do not even give people with a preexisting condition insurance. And then conservatives call Obama a socialist for wanting tax the wealthiest of people to pay for the programs that's more like diet socialism. It's not like the rich are going to lose all their money.
 

bjj hero

New member
Feb 4, 2009
3,180
0
0
Mimsofthedawg said:
bjj hero said:
Mimsofthedawg said:
First of all, the people who get denied coverage in the US are denied it because they're lazy asses who don't work and can't afford health care in the first place. For the 256 million insured people, it works just fine.
Then there are plenty of insured Americans who go bankrupt from medical bills, I doubt the system is working for them. Same for people with pre-existing medical conditions who can't get affordable cover. The same with those whos insurers wriggle out of paying, or who are insured but cant afford the excess to send their sick child to the Dr this month.

If you can afford a good plan and you're in relatively good health it probably works for you but a lot of people are excluded from this group. Most people have no say in aquiring their illness.
But this is a very small minority. You act like it's a common occurrence - it's not. I don't think that the entire health care industry should be overhauled just to accommodate the misfortunes of a few.

Having said that, if you look at my other points, I mention that I support health care for the uninsured, I just don't support the bill presented in Congress at the moment.

Plus, the government already has a program for children. The problem is the people have to apply for it and they don't. There's no excuse for a parent to not be able to send their child to the doctor.

Obama mentions that "if you like your current insurance, you can keep it." But what he fails to take into account is the fact that the current bill states that, if you leave your companies insurance, or your company chooses to switch to government run health care (which they all will because it will be cheaper for them than private insurance), you cannot switch back to a private health care. Similarly, if you start off on government health care, you can not go to private health care. Again, one of my biggest problems is the democrat's lying about what they're actually attempting to do here - it makes this whole thing smell like a pile of shit that I don't trust. Why not just tell us you want to switch health care to government run only?

Not to mention the insane price to insure all Americans would cost the US 10 trillion dollars of debt over the next decade by the most conservative estimates! Some go as high as 40 trillion dollars, just based on health care alone. Give the insurance to those who need it, make incentives for them to switch to private health care, and reform our laws to make health care cheaper so we don't have to attempt to pay so much money.

The expense of health care is another problem. There are a set of laws dictating malpractice suits. The average Surgeon in America receives nearly 200,000 dollars in insurance per year to pay for malpractice suits. These Law suits are often times fraudulent, but the lawyers who work them earn millions of dollars every year. How do these health insurance companies (who are the same insurance companies that provide us with insurance) pay for these lawsuits? They raise prices. If Congress passed laws to help protect America's doctors from fraudulent malpractice suits, the price of health care could go down as much as two thirds from current day levels. When you combine this with possible, responsible government competition, the cost of health care would be among the cheapest in the world - as well as the best. Why doesn't the Congress reform these laws? Because these same lawyers who make millions of dollars in the lawsuits pay Congress millions of dollars in campaign finances. The reality is it's not the health care system that's broken, it's the American government. This is why so many people aren't just protesting against health care reform, but against the American government, with chants like, "Rebuild our Republic!"

Put simply, there are other more efficient ways to reform health care than what Congress is attempting to do. This is why I do not support the President or Congress at all.
There is nothing wrong with the recommendations you have made in your post. Unfortunately the American litigation culture seems to be bleeding into the UK as we speak.

You seem to have not copied my comments on how having a national health care system improved the quality of the private health insurance in Britain. I don't know the details of the bill, my understanding is that there are currently multiple proposals at the moment but the idea behind the bill is sound.

There are plenty of people with preexisting medical conditions, they just aren't always obvious in the street. Yes its a minority but its a larger minority than you'd think. Your points are valid though. Its much better than hearing the usual counter arguments that use the words "communism" and "death pannels" that seem to be echoing around American town halls at the moment.

McCain wouldn't have put up with the hollering, someone would have been tazed by now...
 

Link Kadeshi

New member
Oct 17, 2008
392
0
0
Whoa... Don't suggest America called it evil... I'm sure Mexico and Canada don't wanna be lumped in with that... Heck, it's mainly Republicans that are calling it evil anyways. They're annoyed that Obama is doing better than their last sorted attempt at immortality. Not sure where they got the bit about the Government killing old people, handicapped, and children, mind you, but it's their lies, they don't need reasons.
 

gbemery

New member
Jun 27, 2009
907
0
0
You know I am pretty sure that if I didn't have to pay Social Security then I would be able to use that money the government takes and put it towards health insurance.
 

XT inc

Senior Member
Jul 29, 2009
992
0
21
I always found the criticism on national health care silly. They complain about not getting to choose their own doctors, slow treatment times, poorer care. One thing I noticed was attacks on the treatment times of cancer patients. My mom had cancer and was in treatment as soon as it was diagnosed. I don't think people are even looking at the options. Most people could not even afford so called better treatment so my thinking is which is better. A wait time to full treatment or being wholly bankrupted getting treatment that is "better". I don't know to much on the subject but I know more or less what my moms meds cost excluding chemo and ext and it was in the tens of thousands all free on the Canadian health system.
 

bjj hero

New member
Feb 4, 2009
3,180
0
0
Mimsofthedawg said:
Yea, well, I come from a very conservative family but I also have very liberal friends - the result? I'm a moderate conservative that usually can see both sides of the issue.

At any rate, we should focus on reforming our political system before our health care system - without such reform, the government will eventually break, and health care will be the least of our concerns. Or so says I.
I don't fall on the left or right. I believe most of the answers are in the middle ground with no one being accused of selling out if they lean left or right as circumstances dictate.
 

shadowstriker86

New member
Feb 12, 2009
2,159
0
0
Im not a fan of NHS but ya it was stupid to attack something just for the sake of attacking something. You know what would be the smart thing to do instead of just having the government pay for everything? Having a program with competent people in hospitals, doctors that didnt just toss a prescription at you for everything, PE classes in schools so kids get excercise and not get diabetes at the age of 14, better fast food that doesnt give people heart attacks after eating a small cheeseburger, and better medicine that instead of making people hard at 75, it replaces dead cancer cells with new ones. Now thats not so hard is it?
 

Rolling Thunder

New member
Dec 23, 2007
2,265
0
0
LockHeart said:
Rolling Thunder said:
How so? The NHS in no way compels people to not use private healthcare, or indeed to use it's services. And any healthcare you pay for yourself is tax-deductable, anyway.
I'm not saying that you can't use private healthcare, but that it cannot compete with the NHS. Think: companies compete with each other to attract customers, this involves providing the best balance between service and price - if one fails to adapt accordingly, the other will gain business. The point is that the NHS is guaranteed money no matter what: it does not have to compete with other companies, and other people for the most part will not use private healthcare because they're already being forced to pay for the NHS - deduction in taxes makes no difference, the system compels people to use State healthcare or find themselves even more out of pocket.
An interesting point, however, it can be also argued it compells companies to provide a far, far higher standard of care, as it must overcome both the cost, and the standard of care provided by the NHS (and I assure you, that is quite a good standard of care). The state is not compelling the consumer - the consumer's taxes are already factored in when they plan their expenditure, so, in essence, that money could well be going on guns or fairy cakes for pidgeon consultants, for all it matters to the public.


In essence, you force extra competition on an industry, which can only be to the good of the populace as a whole. So, while your argument does present some interesting facts, the simple matter is that the benefits of the NHS outweigh it's downsides by a factor of a hundred.
 

LockHeart

New member
Apr 9, 2009
2,141
0
0
Rolling Thunder said:
An interesting point, however, it can be also argued it compells companies to provide a far, far higher standard of care, as it must overcome both the cost, and the standard of care provided by the NHS (and I assure you, that is quite a good standard of care). The state is not compelling the consumer - the consumer's taxes are already factored in when they plan their expenditure, so, in essence, that money could well be going on guns or fairy cakes for pidgeon consultants, for all it matters to the public.


In essence, you force extra competition on an industry, which can only be to the good of the populace as a whole. So, while your argument does present some interesting facts, the simple matter is that the benefits of the NHS outweigh it's downsides by a factor of a hundred.
They may have to provide better standards than the NHS (and unequivocably do) but my point is that they simply can't compete with the NHS in the normal sense of the word because citizens are compelled to pay for it - I don't know many people who can afford to pay NI and private insurance. There's simply no incentive for a person to use private healthcare because they're being forced to pay for one system already.

Could you elaborate on your point that 'the consumer's taxes are already factored in when they plan their expenditure'? I might be being a bit dense :z

I don't see how you can force competition on this industry - true competition would be that companies adjust their prices and actually compete with each other to provide better services: the NHS doesn't compete because it will always be guaranteed funding, whereas a private company would have to compete with others in the market to survive.
 

Barciad

New member
Apr 23, 2008
447
0
0
The second David Cameron rallied to the defence of the NHS, I felt that nice little twinge of vindication. He put that little prick Hannan firmly in his place and said that the NHS was something that Britain could firmly be proud of.
Why did he do this? Simple, politics, pure politics. Cameron knows that he has one Achilles Heel. Health. If Labour can suggest that the Tories will privatise the NHS, or something similar, then Cameron will lose. As much as I hate to brag, but the NHS is genuinely popular within Britain and it would be suicide for any politician to suggest that the American system was superior.
Universal Healthcare, free on the point of delivery, is the mark of a civilised society. I have yet to hear anyone say otherwise.
 

Federalist92

New member
Jul 28, 2009
423
0
0
My friends are socialist, my family are socialist, one of my friends lives in a socialist country (Norway) and i live in a partly socialist country (britain) so as you expect im deeply...capitalist...naaa, just joking, socialist really.
And i think that the NHS is wonderful.
My grandad is 88 and has survived two strokes, 3 heart attacks and multiple bone breakages from working in shipyards and he survived all of these thanks to the NHS. When people in other cuntrys say it has poor standards of care they dont know what they're talking about.
 

coffeeaddict

New member
Jun 11, 2009
2
0
0
As I understand it, the US plan is for public insurance, not public healthcare (Doctors can still work where they want), and yes, it's not free. It's paid for by tax dollars. Even assuming that private health coverage plans didn't ever exclude anyone from coverage, or find loopholes the save themselves payouts to unhealthy planholders, the mere fact that they have to collect enough to cover costs AND make a profit adds alot of excess cost to all health costs.

I can't speak for the British, but as a Canadian I can tell you that any Canadian you ask would never give up medicare for private insurance. Heck, I get insurance if I'm visiting the states for even a single day, because there is no way in hell I'm taking the chance of not being covered for even that short time because it could be devastating financially.

I don't know the mind of every person that claims they deserve the right to not be insured if they want, but I suspect that at least some of those cases are still in the "it can't happen to me/I'm invincible" phase of their lives.

I truly hope things work out alright in the end down south.
 

Pillypill

New member
Aug 7, 2009
506
0
0
the NHS saved my life. I drank way too much and had to have my stomach pumped then my intestinal lining "folded" what ever that means. besides socialism is the way forward, it's a great idea.
 

Crimsane

New member
Apr 11, 2009
914
0
0
My main problem with the whole healthcare debate is the idiots going on and on about how it's so wrong... yet never offer an alternative solution. If you've got enough spare time and money on your hands to be making attack commercials, you've got enough time and money to research better methods. I guess that makes too much sense though.
 

Milford Cubicle

New member
Nov 17, 2008
140
0
0
40 million Americans get access to healthcare that they would be denied in the current system; what is the problem?!