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

[Rolling Thunder]

God forbid the American upper classes should support something that is actually good for less well off people...

Right, the real reason we don't hand our personal lives over to the government is because...um...because we hate poor people!

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?

Um...yeah.
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).

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.

You have failed to explain how that's worse than a government monopoly on a crucial service.

Simply put, if I dislike the American system, I can do fuck-all but vote for Obama, and then pray he has the balls and power to do something. If I dislike the NHS, I vote for another party, keeping the bastards on their toes.

In essence, the former is iradicable and unalterable, the latter can be solved by means of a general election. Plus, with a government monopoly, less money gets spent on advertising and crap, and more on treating people. Plus, I'd say government-run healthcare seems to make economies more efficent.

 

[cobra_ky]

*SIGHS*
Ok people, seriously, lets get something straight. There is a difference between health CARE and health INSURANCE. Every person in the United States can recieve healthcare. If you get in a car accident, you will not just be left by the side of the road. If you walk in to the hospital pregnant, they will not kick you out the door if u have no money. People who come to the hospital in need are helped... American doctors take an oath to do so, no matter what.
So. While no health insurance probably means no braces, it doesnt mean the government is just going to let you die.

So since the government ends up paying for a lot of emergency health care anyway, why not insure everyone and keep costs down via preventive care?

Um...yeah.
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.

for-profit businesses have incentive to maximize profit and nothing else. if they can do that by screwing their customers, they will.

EDIT: since the argument seems to be whether a single-payer system would be better or worse than the current system, may i ask what's wrong with simply providing a public option? Aside from the slippery slope argument, i mean.

 

[Worsle]

Um...yeah.
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.

for-profit businesses have incentive to maximize profit and nothing else. if they can do that by screwing their customers, they will.

Yep that is the big mistake people make about capitalism, it does not drive for the best for the customer but the best profit for the company. In a lot of places this is not so bad but without rules placed on the companies they will end up working to the the detriment of their employees and even their customers if they can.

No matter its flaws a public health serves like the NHS is preferable to a private only one. A private one wants to make money from its health insurance and the best way to do that? Not to insure people who will really need it, if you can't see the flaw there then I have to wonder.

edit. It is worth remembering private insurance still exists in Britian, its just an option for those who can afford it rather than a necessity for all.

 

[gurall200]

meh, american politics boil down to a large shouting match between the two, I don't really mind it, untill the politicians start acting like children, the trade channel on wow is more mature then most of them. I heard someone on "Penn & Teller's B_______!" say that the big republican fat cats make a big fuss and mess things up and the democrats go in and raise taxes. Which considering we are in one, it makes me wonder why the democrats of all people are in power, when america has massive debt.

 

[Bigeyez]

Whats also funny is the hypocrisy these men show.

Glen Beck just 16 months ago had a surgery. After the surgery he went on a HUGE rant on several tv shows talking about how the American Healthcare system is the worst thing ever. He talked about how the doctors don't care about the "common" man blah blah blah etc.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=glen%20beck%20surgery&docid=1019545780894&mid=4102F83FC14C588776044102F83FC14C58877604&FORM=VIVR3#

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=glen%20beck%20surgery&docid=1017619350183&mid=BAFBE7E5F6A21A7D5C2EBAFBE7E5F6A21A7D5C2E&FORM=VIVR16#

Now he is saying that our healthcare system is the best in the world and everyone elses is pitful compared to ours. He claims that in Canada people wait 4 months to see a doctor...knwoing Canadians myself I know thats not true.

So what happened in those 16 months that made Glen Beck do a complete 180 on what he thought about the American Health Care system? Oh He moved from CNN to FOX News....LOL

Edit: I'm pretty sure the Daily Show did a skit based on exactly this. I'll try to find the link if I can.

 

[Bigeyez]

Whats also funny is the hypocrisy these men show.

Glen Beck just 16 months ago had a surgery. After the surgery he went on a HUGE rant on several tv shows talking about how the American Healthcare system is the worst thing ever. He talked about how the doctors don't care about the "common" man blah blah blah etc.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=glen%20beck%20surgery&docid=1019545780894&mid=4102F83FC14C588776044102F83FC14C58877604&FORM=VIVR3#

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=glen%20beck%20surgery&docid=1017619350183&mid=BAFBE7E5F6A21A7D5C2EBAFBE7E5F6A21A7D5C2E&FORM=VIVR16#

Now he is saying that our healthcare system is the best in the world and everyone elses is pitful compared to ours. He claims that in Canada people wait 4 months to see a doctor...knwoing Canadians myself I know thats not true.

So what happened in those 16 months that made Glen Beck do a complete 180 on what he thought about the American Health Care system? Oh He moved from CNN to FOX News....LOL

4 months? Actually, I just walk into a clinic any day and wait about 2 hours. And I can ask the doctor about whatever, it will still be free.

Yeah I know. But many pundits like him claim that it takes MONTHS to see a doctor. And that it takes even longer to see a specialist. Some even have the gonads to say people are dying left and right waiting for care in hospitals in England.

 

[Ranthus]

I really hate the Republicans. They don't have the mental capacity to run the country.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

So the people who forced others to pay through the nose for healthcare and refused it to those who couldn't prove they could afford it attack the people who gave it away free?

That's all you need to know really. Hypocritical douchebags, the lot of them.

 

[minignu]

How is getting free healthcare bad? it may not be very good but it gets the job done.

It's not free. We just pay the government instead of the doctors. Also, I don't want healthcare that "gets the job done." I want healthcare that makes me healthy.
High five for ignorance and presumptuousness!

But you pay far less in the long run! And are you saying everyone in the UK is unhealthy then? Seeing as we live so much longer...

Yes, when I said that I want high quality healthcare regardless of expense, I was totally insulting your country.

Uh, you know that in the UK, you can pay for private healthcare and insurance? So you win either way. But obviously, that's not important to your arguement, so feel free to ignore it, as I'm sure you were going to.

The UK system is statistically better for the majority of people. You could argue the morals of the point, but if someone thinks that healthcare for all is morally wrong, they may need to see a doctor themselves. If they want to pay for it of course.

 

[Fulax]

Uh, you know that in the UK, you can pay for private healthcare and insurance? So you win either way. But obviously, that's not important to your arguement, so feel free to ignore it, as I'm sure you were going to.

Obviously if you get private healthcare you still have to pay for the NHS through taxes. So you lose either way.
Also:
"The husband of a woman who died of cancer but was denied free NHS treatment because the couple chose to pay privately from their savings for a drug to prolong her life yesterday urged the government to change its guidelines."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/02/nhs.health

The UK system is statistically better for the majority of people.

Cancer survival rates:

Spoiler

So the NHS is statistically better than what? Not seeing a doctor? Probably...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574609/Patients-left-to-starve-on-NHS-wards.html

...especially if your lifestyle choices aren't in line with the government's

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1563108/Smoker-refused-operation-on-broken-ankle.html

Not to mention the massive cost, waiting lists, MRSA, shortage of doctors, underpaid staff and financial problems.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5995025/Hospitals-to-cut-services-to-pay-for-pay-60bn-private-finance-deal.html

Honestly, I'm pretty sure everyone else in Britain hated the NHS until the yanks started attacking it.

You could argue the morals of the point, but if someone thinks that healthcare for all is morally wrong, they may need to see a doctor themselves. If they want to pay for it of course.

And anyone who thinks its morally right to steal someone's money and use it to pay for a shoddy service that the person may not want or even use, may want to see a doctor. If they can find someone else's money to pay for it of course.

 

[jad4400]

I get really pissed off when the Republicans go off and say that any form of government healthcare is socialism and should be banned (makes me fell ashamed that I'm a member of the party). However I understand some of the misgiving rational people have about this plan, like how are we going to pay for it during an economic ressesion, how it will be implimented, how will it be regulated (I've heard from many Escapians in Europe and Canada is that they love having government healthcare, but they get anoyed when stupid people clog up the system)how much more tax will we have to spend, you know stuff like this, not "Is having a government healthcare program the next step to an Orwellian society?"

 

[Federalist92]

Have you noticed its mainly all this fat cat politicians who dont want it. Thats because some of them can afford to build their own small surgerys. They dont need it, but they'll have to pay a bit of extra tax for it. So they dont want it.
Thats also why some conservative MPs in this country dont want it.

 

[minignu]

Uh, you know that in the UK, you can pay for private healthcare and insurance? So you win either way. But obviously, that's not important to your arguement, so feel free to ignore it, as I'm sure you were going to.

Obviously if you get private healthcare you still have to pay for the NHS through taxes. So you lose either way.
Also:
"The husband of a woman who died of cancer but was denied free NHS treatment because the couple chose to pay privately from their savings for a drug to prolong her life yesterday urged the government to change its guidelines."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/02/nhs.health

The UK system is statistically better for the majority of people.

Cancer survival rates:

Spoiler

So the NHS is statistically better than what? Not seeing a doctor? Probably...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574609/Patients-left-to-starve-on-NHS-wards.html

...especially if your lifestyle choices aren't in line with the government's

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1563108/Smoker-refused-operation-on-broken-ankle.html

Not to mention the massive cost, waiting lists, MRSA, shortage of doctors, underpaid staff and financial problems.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5995025/Hospitals-to-cut-services-to-pay-for-pay-60bn-private-finance-deal.html

Honestly, I'm pretty sure everyone else in Britain hated the NHS until the yanks started attacking it.

You could argue the morals of the point, but if someone thinks that healthcare for all is morally wrong, they may need to see a doctor themselves. If they want to pay for it of course.

And anyone who thinks its morally right to steal someone's money and use it to pay for a shoddy service that the person may not want or even use, may want to see a doctor. If they can find someone else's money to pay for it of course.

So, your massive counterarguement is all anecdotal evidence and emotive language? I could make a counterargument about random single stories about the American system, but it's not actually statistically important. The simple fact of the matter is, we pay just over half of what you do on healthcare, have a higher life expectancy and manage to cover the entirity of society. Frankly, that's a fairly good sign of excellent healthcare - not the best in the world at any rate, but far more efficient than the USA's. And actually, you get reimbursed if you buy privately (which is one of the reasons choose to do so). Much of the issues you say there is with healthcare in Britain is just hearsay from just after the thatcher era when the NHS had practically no funding. If the NHS were so bad, why isn't there a massive market for private healthcare?

 

[72Chevy]

God forbid the American upper classes should support something that is actually good for less well off people...

Right, the real reason we don't hand our personal lives over to the government is because...um...because we hate poor people!

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?

Um...yeah.
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).

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.

You use your mouth pertier than a twenty dollar whore. Very very nice work, I'll give it a +2.

 

[Fulax]

So, your massive counterarguement is all anecdotal evidence and emotive language? I could make a counterargument about random single stories about the American system, but it's not actually statistically important. The simple fact of the matter is, we pay just over half of what you do on healthcare, have a higher life expectancy and manage to cover the entirity of society. Frankly, that's a fairly good sign of excellent healthcare - not the best in the world at any rate, but far more efficient than the USA's. And actually, you get reimbursed if you buy privately (which is one of the reasons choose to do so). Much of the issues you say there is with healthcare in Britain is just hearsay from just after the thatcher era when the NHS had practically no funding. If the NHS were so bad, why isn't there a massive market for private healthcare?

First of all, I'm not American. I'm British. Second, I do not support the US healthcare system.

Amongst my 'anecdotal' evidence you may have missed the cancer survival rate statistics:

Spoiler

You may have missed the fact that 140,000 people left NHS care malnourished in 2007, an 84% rise since Labour came to power.

You may have missed the story about the impending service cuts to help pay off the NHS's massive debts.

The NHS system results in the preventable deaths of 17,000 people every year. 10% of patients pick up a new infection while in NHS care. A middle class patient receives 40% more resources per illness episode than lower classes. We have among the worst cancer and stroke survival rates in Europe.

I guarantee you that if we had a privatised health service with figures like that you would be on here blaming capitalism for putting profit before people.

Regarding our higher life expectancy, this can be put down to a number of factors. For example, in the UK a child that dies shortly after birth is counted as a stillborn, thus not affecting the statistics. In the US, if the child has a pulse when it is born it's counted as a birth, then a death when it dies.

And why don't people get private insurance? Because they're already paying for the NHS. Approx £2000 on every man woman and child in the UK. Take out children and the elderly who don't pay much tax, and that's quite a hefty bill for the working population, especially considering I pay less than £1000 for my Dutch health insurance.

 

[Motti]

The bill will pass. It's inevitable, like space travel.

 

[fulano]

So, your massive counterarguement is all anecdotal evidence and emotive language? I could make a counterargument about random single stories about the American system, but it's not actually statistically important. The simple fact of the matter is, we pay just over half of what you do on healthcare, have a higher life expectancy and manage to cover the entirity of society. Frankly, that's a fairly good sign of excellent healthcare - not the best in the world at any rate, but far more efficient than the USA's. And actually, you get reimbursed if you buy privately (which is one of the reasons choose to do so). Much of the issues you say there is with healthcare in Britain is just hearsay from just after the thatcher era when the NHS had practically no funding. If the NHS were so bad, why isn't there a massive market for private healthcare?

First of all, I'm not American. I'm British. Second, I do not support the US healthcare system.

Amongst my 'anecdotal' evidence you may have missed the cancer survival rate statistics:

Spoiler

You may have missed the fact that 140,000 people left NHS malnourished in 2007, an 84% rise sonce Labour came to power.

You may have missed the story about the impending service cuts to help pay off the NHS's massive debts.

The NHS system results in the preventable deaths of 17,000 people every year. 10% of patients pick up a new infection while in NHS care. A middle class patient receives 40% more resources per illness episode than lower classes. We have among the worst cancer and stroke survival rates in Europe.

I guarantee you that if we had a privatised health service with figures like that you would be on here blaming capitalism for putting profit before people.

Regarding our higher life expectancy, this can be put down to a number of factors. For example, in the UK a child that dies shortly after birth is counted as a stillborn, thus not affecting the statistics. In the US, if the child has a pulse when it is born it's counted as a birth, then a death when it dies.

And why don't people get private insurance? Because they're already paying for the NHS. Approx £2000 per capita on every man woman and child in the UK. Take out children and the elderly who don't pay much tax, and that's quite a hefty bill for the working population, especially considering I pay less than £1000 for my Dutch health insurance.

About the cancer survival rates, which you tout so much, can you elabore on the averages of people treated? How many of the population was treated in the U.S vs how many in the other countries. You should consider that if you are going to use those.

 

[Naeo]

Wow. Just, wow.

We're trying to decide something here in American politics and the American future, so the Republicans (or at least the ones concerned) immediately turn around and start flinging the exact same attacks they flung at Obama's healthcare plan at a differen't country, falsehood/lies ("KILLING BABIES AND OLD PEOPLE", as they foam lobbyist money at the mouth) and all...? It's one thing to fling them at the relevant location/person (that is, Obama's health care bill), but not a good thing. It's totally different to attack another country's to try and make us not do it. Like that's ever mattered a damn to us. Though, I have to wonder why it's specifically the NHS and not, say, France's or Germany's or, oh, Taiwan's (disregarding the massive infrastructural damage from the recent cyclone), or any other country on earth's that they're attacking. That's the same logic as "By throwing a beer bottle at a pedestrian on the other side of the road, you'll convince your friend to wrestle that ostrich, god dammit."

What the fuck, guys.