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

[fulano]

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.

The plan is not even in the same vein as the NHS, it's just a public OPTION--a PREMIUM the government extends to those WILLING to pay for it. If someone doesn't like it, then they can go back to paying for their healthcare, or having none. It's an option and doesn't hurt the average people. If it sucks then it tanks and everything goes back to how it was, no biggie. There are NO subsidys, nothing. It is funded by premiums paid by the consumers and that's it.

But aparently some people have trouble wrapping their mind around that and much rather listen to loons like Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly who can afford their own coverage already.

 

[romannelli]

Always someone wants to split hairs.
Like any subject, you'd have to be writing on here for hours to cover every detail of [in this case Socialism] so they come back at you with a load of cobblers.

 

[Fulax]

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.

More info on the cancer stats:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596/

Summary

The Lancet Oncology, Volume 8, Issue 9, Pages 784 - 796, September 2007
Recent cancer survival in Europe: a 2000-02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data

Dr Arduino Verdecchia PhD a , Silvia Francisci a, Hermann Brenner MD b, Gemma Gatta MD c, Andrea Micheli PhD d, Lucia Mangone MD e, Ian Kunkler FRCPE f, the EUROCARE-4 Working Group?

Background
Traditional cancer-survival analyses provide data on cancer management at the beginning of a study period, and are often not relevant to current practice because they refer to survival of patients treated with older regimens that might no longer be used. Therefore, shortening the delay in providing survival estimates is desirable. Period analysis can estimate cancer survival by the use of recent data. We aimed to apply the period-analysis method to data that were collected by European cancer registries to estimate recent survival by country and cancer site, and to assess survival changes in Europe. We also compared our findings with data on cancer survival in the USA from the US SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) programme.

Methods
We analysed survival data for patients diagnosed with cancer in 2000-02, collected from 47 of the European cancer registries participating in the EUROCARE-4 study. 5-year period relative survival for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 was estimated as the product of interval-specific relative survival values of cohorts with different lengths of follow-up. 5-year survival profiles for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 were estimated for the European mean and for five European regions, and findings were compared with US SEER registry data for patients diagnosed in 2000-02. A 5-year survival profile for patients diagnosed in 1991?2002 and a 10-year survival profile for patients diagnosed in 1997-2002 were also estimated by the period method for all malignancies, by geographical area, and by cancer site.

Findings
For all cancers, age-adjusted 5-year period survival improved for patients diagnosed in 2000-02, especially for patients with colorectal, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancer, Hodgkin's disease, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The European mean age-adjusted 5-year survival calculated by the period method for 2000-02 was high for testicular cancer (97.3% [95% CI 96.4-98.2]), melanoma (86.1% [84.3-88.0]), thyroid cancer (83.2% [80.9-85.6]), Hodgkin's disease (81.4% [78.9-84.1]), female breast cancer (79.0% [78.1-80.0]), corpus uteri (78.0% [76.2-79.9]), and prostate cancer (77.5% [76.5-78.6]); and low for stomach cancer (24.9% [23.7-26.2]), chronic myeloid leukaemia (32.2% [29.0-35.7]), acute myeloid leukaemia (14.8% [13.4-16.4]), and lung cancer (10.9% [10.5-11.4]). Survival for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 was generally highest for those in northern European countries and lowest for those in eastern European countries, although, patients in eastern European had the highest improvement in survival for major cancer sites during 1991?2002 (colorectal cancer from 30.3% [28.3-32.5] to 44.7% [42.8-46.7]; breast cancer from 60% [57.2-63.0] to 73.9% [71.7-76.2]; for prostate cancer from 39.5% [35.0-44.6] to 68.0% [64.2-72.1]). For all solid tumours, with the exception of stomach, testicular, and soft-tissue cancers, survival for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 was higher in the US SEER registries than for the European mean. For haematological malignancies, data from US SEER registries and the European mean were comparable in 2000-02, except for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Interpretation
Cancer-service infrastructure, prevention and screening programmes, access to diagnostic and treatment facilities, tumour-site-specific protocols, multidisciplinary management, application of evidence-based clinical guidelines, and recruitment to clinical trials probably account for most of the differences that we noted in outcomes.

 

[romannelli]

Always someone wants to split hairs.
Like any subject, you'd have to be writing on here for hours to cover every detail of [in this case Socialism] so they come back at you with a load of cobblers.

 

[dalek sec]

Well they're Republicans, what else do you expect of them to do? I know not all of them act like this but something needs to be done about them, one way or another.

 

[dalek sec]

To quote Stephen Fry's twitter: Know this, Republicans. Even the most right wing British politician wouldn't think of dismantling our health service.

You know... I've only seen this man on Bones but god I frakking love this guy. Thank you Stephen Fry.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

On the subject of Republican vs Democrat positions on levels of government control and provision, nazism, socialism, communism, capitalism, totalitarianism, libertarianism, anarchy, freedom and so on, can we please adopt the two-dimensional system of The Political Compass [http://politicalcompass.org/] rather than just one dimension?

it would be nice if we could, but take a look at 2008's presidential candidates: http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

unfortunately, a linear regression model fits America's political landscape rather well. Thanks, two-party system!

Yes, there's a general trend among these parties, but it's from Hippie to Hitler, not from Stalin to Libertarian.

Well, Ralph Nader to Tom Tancredo, Ghandi to Thatcher, that sort of direction, rather than Hitler. Hitler's actually off the totalitarian side of the trend.

It's not the linear trend that was being portrayed by some earlier posters:

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.

Nazism is a philosophy on the far right, and opposed socialism. This means that A) the Nazis probably agree with the Republicans here and B) these guys probably have more in common with Hitler than Obama anyway.

(... and forever saturday was very right in the last paragraph.)

I think there's a perception over here that the economic right wing is strongly associated with totalitarianism and vice versa (which is why we think of Hitler and the BNP as far-right) and a perception at least among the FOX crowd that socialism tends towards communism, which is totalitarian, therefore socialism is totalitarianism and the right wing is freedom-loving (as if the trend was Stalin to Friedman).

...

...

Wait a sec....an entire country called NHS in England evil? Is that even possible? What does America's voice sound like? Baritone? Tenor? Alto? Please, do tell.

Kind of like the first minute and last twenty seconds of Sympathy For The Devil on the Guns 'n' Roses Greatest Hits album, and kind of like "Our name is Legion, for we are many".

 

[Spacewolf]

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.

i ghess that explains why who ranks the NHS so low on there healthcare tables, o wait.

 

[sirdanrhodes]

I'd be in deep shit without the NHS,so would my sister, and my parents would have had to pay out the ass for both of us.

 

[fedpayne]

I'd like to add my support, as an Englishman, for the NHS. It's a absolutely fucking brilliant service.

 

['Stache]

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.

And I'm sure those private companies do great when they have to compete with the crushing force of a massive federal organization.

 

[Dudemeister]

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.

The Liberal media ?
Have you seen the coverage Fox News has been giving this ?

 

[Dudemeister]

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.

And I'm sure those private companies do great when they have to compete with the crushing force of a massive federal organization.

Actually, they do fine. Many people choose private healthcare when the want immediate treatment.

 

[LockHeart]

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.

And I'm sure those private companies do great when they have to compete with the crushing force of a massive federal organization.

Actually, they do fine. Many people choose private healthcare when the want immediate treatment.

The point is that they can't really compete with the NHS because the State has a coercive monopoly on healthcare - if the government allowed people to opt out of the NHS system and allowed for private healthcare companies operate in direct competetition with it, then things would be different.

 

[fulano]

More info on the cancer stats:

*snip*

I do agree with you that there is a problem with the NHS, but I believe the studies you cited don't help your cause much. the study is about survival by country. Correct me if I'm wrong--but how exactly does that further your point of comparing the NHS against the current U.S based system of HMO provided healthcare? The study itself mentions that it is drawing means, that means(no pun intended) that what they are comparing are averages of people having been treated per country but there is not one mention of averages of those actually being covered.

It could be very, very likely that more people are being treated in England, or in Canada than in the U.S, and more people are surviving than in the U.S, but the averages are still lower because those in the U.S that get treated are the minority(those who can afford it).

For Example:

* For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
* For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

Nobody mentions that the the average of canadians that are actually getting treatment vs the average of americans is way higher. And let's be honest, the study was more than a little slanted in a particular direction(guess which one).

In one your your links, the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm is even cited as giving up props for the U.S cancer rates(more availability of drugs--but coincidentally it doesn't mention who buys them), what they don't mention is that in Sweden the population has equal access to healthcare, and it is funded itself by government taxation.


About the following:

The team, writing in The Lancet Oncology, found that Britain's survival rates for the most common cancers - colorectal, lung, breast and prostate - were substantially behind those in Western Europe.

Ahem...yes indeed, but those countries in Western Europe are also national plans put forth by the government.

I don't think there are enough facts to conclude what you are concluding, other than the NHS has a problem when compared to its peers(big one) and that the U.S in number 1 in cancer rates when comparing survival rates(this is awesome so far).

Sorry, but having checked the links you sent me I can't agree with you, and I'm not even sure you are understanding the information put forth correctly. For me to do that I'd need more information than the one you gave me. This is a serious matter and we can't go around jumping to conclusion, you know. If you are indeed right, what you just gave me is not enough to justify your opinion and I'm left scratching my head and can only think that you draw conclusions based on ideology and not the information available.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

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.

And I'm sure those private companies do great when they have to compete with the crushing force of a massive federal organization.

Actually, they do fine. Many people choose private healthcare when the want immediate treatment.

The point is that they can't really compete with the NHS because the State has a coercive monopoly on healthcare - if the government allowed people to opt out of the NHS system and allowed for private healthcare companies operate in direct competetition with it, then things would be different.

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.

 

[LockHeart]

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.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

Free universal healthcare is one of the greatest things about the UK. Everyone, no matter their wealth is entitled to the exact same treatment. And that treatment is given in order of who needs it most, not who has the most money.
This is one area where America is lagging far behind the rest of the the civilised world.