you know, this smells rattish to me. i think maybe five obnoxious sterotype repubs yallered about it, and the liberal media decided to try and make someone besides obama look shitty in light of his recent loss of popularity.
America calls England's NHS service "evil" after Obama's latest proposal to change healthcare system
- Thread starter Sparrow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's the thing. It's not just that healthcare is denied to people in the US as well, it's denied to people in the US more than in other countries, far more in the case of comparison with the NHS, which has one of the lowest rates of denial of care in the world.Mimsofthedawg said:
"rationing" in a real healthcare system doesn't mean "you don't get the operation", it means "you have to wait for the operation unless it's critical".
You don't have the ability to choose anyway, because even if you had the right, any cover that's worth anything more than wadding up the policy document to stop a nosebleed is prohibitively expensive anyway.
Bear in mind that even within the US, the three socialised systems (Medicare, Medicaid, VA) have much higher customer satisfaction ratings than any private insurers. The government is doing it better, and they are doing it cheaper, because administrative overheads for their programs are much lower (3% for Medicaid, 20% for the best of the private insurers. Shareholders pocket the other 17% at your expense).
If you really believe that your having a "right to choose" matters dick, you're just the kind of sucker the health insurance industry loves, because you'll fork over hundreds for their shitty cover, but it's alright, because you chose it.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense actually. Guess that makes me a Democrat then. I'm all for Government control in areas that I believe need it.Cocamaster said:
Health care is no different from the Police or Firefighters. All three are emergency services, thus I believe all should be covered by Government taxation.
The NHS is NOT free. It's about £1650 per person (100 billion quid / 60 million people roughly) per year to run, and that moneys coming from taxes. 1.4 million people don't work for free you know.The Mighty Admiral SEAMAN said:
To be fair it's her own stupid fault for not being insured. Simply by being in America she's paying something like 15% less of her income away in taxes, which would more than offset the cost of health insurance...
As an American i would like the bill to pass. I don't think anyone has more of a right to good health and life just because they have the money too.
You're welcome.internutt said:
If you ever need to simplify this further, try this:
A democrat tends to see government as a parent: someone who protects and nurtures his children, but places rules and boundaries.
A republican sees government as a butler: someone put in charge of tending to the house and the tasks that taking care of it involves.
Both perspectives have their merits, but it is easy to see people gravitating towards one or the other.
Not even slightly. The average cost of health insurance in America for people who have it at all is 30% of their income.Danzaivar said:
And even people who do have health insurance, they're frequently fucked over if they have to claim on it. 60% of personal bankruptcies in America are down to medical costs, and two thirds of those people had insurance cover when they became ill.
Yeah Republicans are going at this like kids, they should just tow out what problems there are without sensationalising it all. It's a much better argument to say two negatives that are true, than four negatives which half are false since then you discredit the two good points you actually made.
I mean hell, if they really wanted to put people off an NHS style system, they just need to bring out the tax figures for the UK. 15% (going to 18.5% in december) sales tax, ~13% National Insurance income tax, Scaling PAYE income tax (20% at £6k to 40% at £35k - AFTER National Insurance), 70% fuel tax, VERY hefty alcohol and tobacco taxes, road tax etc. If you matches us AND kept your crazy ass military you'd easily be the most heavily taxed nation on Earth.
They do have some good points...they just show them really badly, and make themselves look like crazies at the same time. Ah well.
BTW: Isn't this sort of stuff the kind of thing that should be decided at State level? I don't really see how the federal Government can decide what level of healthcare the whole of the US needs, since there has to be some states that would be better off sticking to the private system, surely?
I mean hell, if they really wanted to put people off an NHS style system, they just need to bring out the tax figures for the UK. 15% (going to 18.5% in december) sales tax, ~13% National Insurance income tax, Scaling PAYE income tax (20% at £6k to 40% at £35k - AFTER National Insurance), 70% fuel tax, VERY hefty alcohol and tobacco taxes, road tax etc. If you matches us AND kept your crazy ass military you'd easily be the most heavily taxed nation on Earth.
They do have some good points...they just show them really badly, and make themselves look like crazies at the same time. Ah well.
BTW: Isn't this sort of stuff the kind of thing that should be decided at State level? I don't really see how the federal Government can decide what level of healthcare the whole of the US needs, since there has to be some states that would be better off sticking to the private system, surely?
Not really. State level isn't a large enough risk pool to make the system effective, especially in the states which actually need this system, places like West Virginia, which has more resemblance to a third world shithole than it does the richest nation on earth.Danzaivar said:
I find that hard to believe if I'm honest. That would mean in a family with 2 kids, both parents pay 60% of their income to fund their health insurance? If you have 4 kids then to insure the family both parents only have 10% of their remaining income to pay the mortgage, utilities, food, car, rest of their tax, etc?GloatingSwine said:
I thought that was a bit odd, calling the NHS socialist as if we were back in the 1960' and everyone was terrified of communism.
Anyway, if they call free healthcare evil, then I would hate to see what they call good.
Anyway, if they call free healthcare evil, then I would hate to see what they call good.
Ah, my mistake. I was assuming that states pretty much had a basic standard of wealth, and just 'ghetto' areas pocketed about. Yeah if a whole state is screwed over then I guess they can only get anything from a federal solution.GloatingSwine said:
I thought West Virginia was like, deep south sort of territory anyway? Surely they'd be too right wing to want the Government to provide for them? Of course, that might just be the idle assumption of a dirty foreigner...
Danzaivar said:
States rights haven't mattered since the end of the Civil War. For all the goodness that eradicating slavery was, it opened up an unintended result of states rights being existent only at the allowance of the now almighty Fed. States technically don't even have the right to secede because the federal government would just conquer it like the north did the south.
Constitutionality also doesn't matter to the Federal Government anymore either, but then again, it hasn't since even before the civil war.
One thing to note: this is not national health care, it is national health insurance. Anyone in America can, and will receive treatment. This is health insurance, which is vastly different. Personally, I'm against any kind of national health insurance, because ultimately it will destroy the private sector, because the private sector will have to turn a profit to survive, whereas the government doesn't have to. Result, the private sector will die.
Also, working from historical standpoint here, allowing a government to control anything health related opens a new avenue for corruption. Look at Honduran ex-President Zelaya; he had used his control of national health care as a lever to force the populace into control. I don't care if nobody in our government WILL do the same, I don't want them to be ABLE to.
And believe me, they will use it against the public. Whenever there is a budget issue, and talk of cutting spending is made, or refusal of a tax increase, they ALWAYS talk of cutting things which people care about -Police, Defense, Education, and Infrastructure- instead of their own private pork projects where the vast majority ends up. This health insurance will be no different, and will end up like the other four I mentioned.
You're assuming that the Government can do a better job of it than the private sector can. Chances are, the Government one will provide a basic level for a certain amount, and then your private insurers will just have to either be cheaper, or better to warrant people paying for it. Insurance companies won't just give up and go bankrupt, they'll adapt and it might even break some monopolies/cartels and ultimately provide a better insurance industry.Johnnyallstar said:
Your only problem is if they start drawing tax from other areas to raise revenue that private companies can't compete with, then expand the system to provide even better cover or make it even cheaper, at which point you get the problems you mentioned.
And yes, it will be politicised VERY heavily. You can probably see my kinsmen bigging up the NHS and brushing off any criticism, this is the prevailing view here and any political party that even HINTS at limiting the NHS is shot down and slammed by the voters. Not least because over 2% of the population WORK for the NHS.
National Health Insurance is definitely a better option than a National Health Service however. Since you can opt out of paying for Insurance, but try opting out of paying tax...
It's certainly "Paddle faster, I hear banjos" country. However, the state basically lives off of senate pork. They might talk a red game, but they have no problem taking federal money.Danzaivar said:
No, each parent pays around 30%, leading to the combined cost of 30%. Adding up fractions, see. Children are usually included as dependents under the cover. This, of course, does not include co-pay, because insurance doesn't cover 100% of any procedure either, you still have to pay some yourself, and even that's enough to bankrupt some.
If the private healthcare sector was worth shit, it wouldn't be killed by government competition. This line of argument is basically an admission that private healthcare can't do the job, but why should three hundred million people get fucked over for the profit margin of a few thousand? Also, there is still private health provision in Europe, it's just a much smaller market and is generally only used for elective surgery and people who want to queue jump and don't mind paying for it.Johnnyallstar said:
Well Yeah, it is tax based and so not technically free. But all government services are tax funded, so we aren't just paying for the healthcare but all emergency services as well.Danzaivar said:
It's free at the point of use, which is what actually matters.Danzaivar said:
Anyway, I think everyone in this thread needs to watch this educational video [http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/watch.html] to see just how much of a ride America is being taken for by the health insurance industry.