you would not complain about free healthcare if you were on the other side of the wallInfiniteloop said:
some people can not afford to pay for healthcare- free healthcare is all some have
America calls England's NHS service "evil" after Obama's latest proposal to change healthcare system
- Thread starter Sparrow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
some people can not afford to pay for healthcare- free healthcare is all some have
Hand your personal lives over to the government? I'm not sure I totally get your wording there but you saying you trust what is essentially a business designed to make money over the government with your health? It's a close one admittedly but the government in England doesn't do a bad job of it for the most part, in spite of what those horribly, horribly biased TV commercials say over there.
According to figures shown on Sky news that I saw today the English healthcare system works out like 70% cheaper per person per year and is rated by the W.H.O. far above the current American system at 18 compared to your 37 [http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html].
It's cheaper for everybody, provides more access to it for more people because you don't need any insurance to be treated at a good standard, and it has the potential to increase in quality too if the English model is followed or even improved upon.
The only reason I can think of not to do it is that far too many businessmen stand to profit from the hospitals being private.
Healthcare isn't the deciding factor in life expectancy, maybe people here just live more healthily? Although I can see that sliding in a few years or so...mikecoulter said:
Maybe you do pay less, but I'd be willing to pay more to a private company for better service. I'm just opposed to having the government dictate that I must pay for something that I've so far not needed to use or I'll go to jail.
Is that why everyone says Veterans Affairs provides the best [http://www1.va.gov/OPA/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=893] care in [http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=3991225&page=2] the United States? [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/bill-kristol-admits-publi_n_246145.html]The Rogue Wolf said:
This isn't meant to be a dig at you in particular, it just annoys me when someone says that VA gives shit care, when it's all mostly rumors.
And even if they weren't, any government corruption and bureaucratic asshatery in the VA is completely overwhelmed by the questionable tactics of the insurance industry. And the people agree.
Um...yeah.wewontdie11 said:
A business designed to make money has incentive to keep prices low and quality high. If they don't, people will go to their competitors. A government-run organization, by contrast, will continue to receive funding no matter how unhappy its customers are, and will be run on the whims of idealistic morons (as opposed to people who actually know how healthcare systems work).
You do realise you live in a democracy right? If the government don't fund the healthcare system enough that's a major strike against them come election time. It is in the governments best interests to make a good job of it or they won't be in power for too long. One of the main issues that always comes up around election time in England is still NHS funding because it is such a contentious issue.
Those people really should do a little research about West-European health care and find out the system here actually works pretty well and doesn't turn your country in a communist dystopia. Still, this is a step towards a more social-democratic America, and even though I personally see that as a good thing, it can be a pretty frightening idea for local conservatives.
*sigh* why can't there be a single topic about politics, religion, or whatever else without the whole topic devolving into a pretty annoying pattern?
if you believe god doesn't exist, then christians suck
if you believe god exists, then atheists suck
if your democrat, then republicans suck
if your republican, then democrats suck
if you believe ANYTHING widely debated on, then the other guy is hitler
et cetera et cetera...
even stuff most people agree on is irritating
Capatalism is bad
Americans are fat
Frenchman all sport black and white striped shirts, curly mustaches, and berets
i'd much rather people completely drop it then get in "debates" {read: series of drunken rage filled posts}
why can't euro-peoples let us Americans do our own damn thing,
{and vice-versa}
if you believe god doesn't exist, then christians suck
if you believe god exists, then atheists suck
if your democrat, then republicans suck
if your republican, then democrats suck
if you believe ANYTHING widely debated on, then the other guy is hitler
et cetera et cetera...
even stuff most people agree on is irritating
Capatalism is bad
Americans are fat
Frenchman all sport black and white striped shirts, curly mustaches, and berets
i'd much rather people completely drop it then get in "debates" {read: series of drunken rage filled posts}
why can't euro-peoples let us Americans do our own damn thing,
{and vice-versa}
Actually, I do think that's socialist, in the sense of "from the right, towards the centre" being increasing socialism.romannelli said:
Being able to show up at a hospital and get treatment without having to wait for a credit check or put down a deposit is socialist.
The roads and bridges are also socialist.
Bus passes for the elderly are socialist.
The state pension is socialist.
The legal minimum standards of mains water are socialist.
Having a Crown Prosecution Service and various police forces who investigate and prosecute crimes and suspects based on evidence regardless of suspects' and victims' relative wealth is socialist.
The national minimum wage is socialist.
Guaranteeing every child a place at a school is socialist.
The village green is socialist, and has been since it was the common and every resident had the right to graze a goat on it. Public parks in towns where kids can play are, likewise, socialist. Remember those?
Sewage handling laws that keep raw sewage out of those public parks are also socialist.
Your right to legal representation is socialist.
Sure, socialism also pays for ungrateful, idle scum to live in nice houses as well as the lovely unfortunates, and provides legal representatives to defend the nastiest criminals as well as the innocent accused, but everybody's imperfect.
...
The Khmer Rouge, for example, were not socialists. They were extreme regressive communist anti-intellectual hypocrites.
Socialism as a position isn't an extreme position. It's the left side of the middle area.
1. You sir, have clearly no concept of an olgiopoly. I shall explain:
In essence, one has a system whereby due to the low number of competitors, and the cost structures, it is in no-ones interests to attempt to actually compete. Instead, prices stay around the same level, and more effort is funneled into marketing and non-price competition. Put simply, to raise prices would see people go to your competitors, but to lower them would actually hurt you, as you'd be making a lesser profit simply because the number of new customers will not recuperate the loss of revenue from the lowered profits. This, sir, is healthcare.
OK, the "attack" is unwaranted, but it is true that most Americans have far better healthcare than that provided by the NHS, but we also pay for it. We have survival rates for common illnesses/cancers that are sometimes 6x higher than Europe. So our healthcare system is very good as it is, but I will elaborate.
Now to shed a little light onto why there is so much hate for Socialist healthcare.
We don't exactly fear socalism, we have many forms of it in our government currently (Social security, public education, welfare, to name a few). Not as much as some European countries, but we do have it. So fear of socalism is a scape goat.
The problem is the nature of this health care reform. The Democrats keep spouting off that 49 million Americans are uninsured. What they don't say is that the majority of that 49 million are illegal imigrants or people who can afford health insurance but chose not to buy it. So the selling point of why we "need" health care reform is false. Plus (my wife is in the health care industry), there is no person in this country who is denied service. If an uninsured comes into a hospital, they are taken care of and the government floats the bill.
Secondly, there is no way to pay for it. We have a congress/president who in the first 6 month of office have spent more money than any two president's combined. They have taken our national deficit form 600 Billion to 1.4 Trillion in 6 months. It took Bush 4 years to rack up 600 billion in debt (and he was a moron), Obama and the Dems have him beat in only 6 months. And now they want to add a 1.5 trillion dollar health care to it. In order to pay for this, every single Taxpaying American would need to increase their taxes by 40%. We have a government that is out of control in spending. The congresional finance commitee has said that Obama's health care plan is impossible to pay for without severe tax hikes.
And to any of you who like the Dems/Obama and are not tax-payers, kindy be quiet. And if you think our country does need radical health care reform, are you prepared to give a pretty big chunck of your paycheck to get it?
And another thing that bothers me about his administration (I had high hopes for Obama, but he has let me down), the wars. Bush got all kinds of shit for the war in Iraq. Do you realize that we curently have more troops overseas in the middle east than we ever did when Bush was in office? And our number of troops in Afganastan is expected to double in the coming months. Why are all the Iraq war haters not on Obama/the Dems case? I did not like the war in Iraq and I like it less that we now have a larger presence in the middle ease. WAKE UP PEOPLE! And take a good look at what is happening around you.
Now to shed a little light onto why there is so much hate for Socialist healthcare.
We don't exactly fear socalism, we have many forms of it in our government currently (Social security, public education, welfare, to name a few). Not as much as some European countries, but we do have it. So fear of socalism is a scape goat.
The problem is the nature of this health care reform. The Democrats keep spouting off that 49 million Americans are uninsured. What they don't say is that the majority of that 49 million are illegal imigrants or people who can afford health insurance but chose not to buy it. So the selling point of why we "need" health care reform is false. Plus (my wife is in the health care industry), there is no person in this country who is denied service. If an uninsured comes into a hospital, they are taken care of and the government floats the bill.
Secondly, there is no way to pay for it. We have a congress/president who in the first 6 month of office have spent more money than any two president's combined. They have taken our national deficit form 600 Billion to 1.4 Trillion in 6 months. It took Bush 4 years to rack up 600 billion in debt (and he was a moron), Obama and the Dems have him beat in only 6 months. And now they want to add a 1.5 trillion dollar health care to it. In order to pay for this, every single Taxpaying American would need to increase their taxes by 40%. We have a government that is out of control in spending. The congresional finance commitee has said that Obama's health care plan is impossible to pay for without severe tax hikes.
And to any of you who like the Dems/Obama and are not tax-payers, kindy be quiet. And if you think our country does need radical health care reform, are you prepared to give a pretty big chunck of your paycheck to get it?
And another thing that bothers me about his administration (I had high hopes for Obama, but he has let me down), the wars. Bush got all kinds of shit for the war in Iraq. Do you realize that we curently have more troops overseas in the middle east than we ever did when Bush was in office? And our number of troops in Afganastan is expected to double in the coming months. Why are all the Iraq war haters not on Obama/the Dems case? I did not like the war in Iraq and I like it less that we now have a larger presence in the middle ease. WAKE UP PEOPLE! And take a good look at what is happening around you.
The reason BUPA provides such a good service is because of the national health service. In the UK BUPA is a luxury. It has to provide a service above and beyond the NHS or they would go out of business.Danzaivar said:
In America there is little alternative to private health insurance. Its run to make a profit. Thats why in the US its expensive. They have to please share holders. Its profitable not to treat the unwell. Even with insurance there is a charge every time you see a Dr etc. that makes prescription charges look like change. Similar to car insurance. your car gets scratched, you have to pay an excess. At this point you dont go to the Dr unless you are on deaths door. There are pros to this but at the same time you are less likely to get that lump checked out. One of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in the US is medical bills... and most of those people have insurance.
With cost it adds a whole extra level of beuracracy chasing up whos got what cover with which company. Then there are the people digging through your policy/medical history/current condition trying to find a loop hole not to treat you. In a company run for profit it makes sense not to pay out unless you absolutely have to.
The UK system isn't perfect, I have plenty of suggestions for improvements to the NHS. There are other countries with better health care, the US is not one of them. Having lived there I'd take our system over theres any time, even though its not free. American health care is great if you're rich, in good health or if the insurance companies pay your wage.
I'm sick of people whining about the insurance companies being "hurt" by these measures. They will just have to evolve and offer a desirable service, similar to BUPA. Otherwise diversify. Plenty of other things need insuring. It's like turning down world peace because arms manufacturers will lose business.
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.Mimsofthedawg said:
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.
Congratulations, I do believe you just described the Dutch healthcare system to a tee, we're 1 spot above the UK in the Healthcare chart.Danzaivar said:
it would be nice if we could, but take a look at 2008's presidential candidates: http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008Shoqiyqa said:
unfortunately, a linear regression model fits America's political landscape rather well. Thanks, two-party system!
After reading all of the well researched and thought out responses in this thread the only thing that springs to my mind that still seems most appropriate is "Republicans lol"