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

[Cocamaster]

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?

I don't think his point wasn't that the private sector can't offer the same quality as the government, but that the government doesn't have to be profitable; it is subsidiced with taxes and a yearly adjustable government budget, while the private sector has to profit or dissapear.

Also, I don't think the comparison of "millions versus thousands" is very accurate. There are millions of people whose jobs depend directly or indirectly to private health and would suffer if the private sector shrinks.

I personally think that in order for the private sector to improve, it first needs to be alowed to really compete. If I understand correctly, the current laws forbit a private insurer to offer insurance outside of the state it operates in, so a Washington insurer can't offer insurance in New York. That's a recepy for monopoly and abuse. What incentive does an insurance company have to improve if after driving al their competition to the ground in their state there is no one else to compete with?

 

[Madshaw]

so is this what muck raking is then?

 

[easyace]

Let's see we have good quality and quantity health care, but the cost is too high. What should we do? I know lets put the government in charge of it (they never mess things up right?) when the deficit is at an all time high and we're already borrowing money from the Chinese and ourselves (or some call it just printing money) like there's no tomorrow.
There's no way this can end well. Either we have to raise taxes to pay for it, or we default on the loan. At that point our money isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Oh another option of course would be to lower spending everywhere else, but what do you cut? Medicare failed, as did Social Security so what makes people think national health care will be any different? In the end it'll be the biggest money pit we've ever dug and by the time we figure out that it was a bad idea we'll be in far worse shape then we are now.

 

[forever saturday]

What's with the irrational fear of just a tiny bit of socialism in America?

I get the impression that socialism is worse in America than neo-nazism is in Germany.
It's probably because America spent a good 50 years fighting socialism, and since America is always right, then socialism must be bad.

I find it hilarious that the Republicans are comparing a Obama to Hitler. 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.

Anyway, the reason Socialism is so maligned in America is because it was considered another word for Communism, which during the fifties was roughly equivalent to the puritans views of witch craft.

It was often said that Communism was the opposite of freedom, which is basically the most important thing to americans these days, with many Conservatives accusing people of hating freedom for not agreeing with them.

Thing is, the word "Freedom" has pretty much lost all meaning these days. So lets say someone disagrees with the American government's view on something. Lets call him Sarkozy. If Sarkozy voices his opinion (in other words, exercising freedom), he is accused of hating freedom, and they start calling it "freedom fries" or whatever.

It also often takes a "with us or against us" fallacy. The idea is that if you aren't following a "my country is always right" philosophy, then you are a terrorist who eats puppies and uses the Stars and Stripes to wipe the puppies from your face that you downed with vodka which was also used to soak the Stars and Stripes that you just set on fire with the evil magic you got from satan by performing the Nazi salute while marching through red square.

 

[Danzaivar]

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.

Stop calling the NHS free dammit. >_>

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.

Come on, that's like saying if you buy a bag of crisps, then an individual crisp inside might as well be free since it's included with the bag. Or if you pay for an all-inclusiive holiday then your meals are free. Is a TV free if you don't pay anything for the first 12 months? How abstract does the billing system have to be before payment doesn't register as you paying for it?

Christ, people going around calling the NHS free are the reason it's in such a dire state. You can't complain about the shoddy condition of hospitals when "you get it for free so you can't complain". Americans paying directly at least get to demand better standards as paying customers and don't get shot down for daring to want things to be better.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

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.

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.

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...

I don't know what you're thinking, but I NEVER said that the government could do a better job than the private sector. On the contrary, I would rather contract through a private corporation than go through the government.

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.

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.

The government is able to kill it by passing laws which restrict the private sectors ability. Don't castigate what you don't understand. There's sections within the 1100 page bill which mandate that no new services by current insurers can be done. It's in the bill, read it. They are going to kill the private sector with it, it's in the bill, and Obama has several times intoned that very same thing.

 

[Danzaivar]

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?

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.

That's 30% of income for the household, not person then. Would I be right in assuming this figure is after tax? Or is it pre-tax income?

Cos in the UK, we pay pre tax (Then the remaining money is taxed as income) for national insurance. Even after that we end up paying a LOT of tax for everything and a lot of it goes back to the NHS anyway. Sales tax on stuff you buy doesn't pay towards health insurance does it?

 

[Johnnyallstar]

What's with the irrational fear of just a tiny bit of socialism in America?

I get the impression that socialism is worse in America than neo-nazism is in Germany.
It's probably because America spent a good 50 years fighting socialism, and since America is always right, then socialism must be bad.

I find it hilarious that the Republicans are comparing a Obama to Hitler. 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.

Anyway, the reason Socialism is so maligned in America is because it was considered another word for Communism, which during the fifties was roughly equivalent to the puritans views of witch craft.

It was often said that Communism was the opposite of freedom, which is basically the most important thing to americans these days, with many Conservatives accusing people of hating freedom for not agreeing with them.

Thing is, the word "Freedom" has pretty much lost all meaning these days. So lets say someone disagrees with the American government's view on something. Lets call him Sarkozy. If Sarkozy voices his opinion (in other words, exercising freedom), he is accused of hating freedom, and they start calling it "freedom fries" or whatever.

It also often takes a "with us or against us" fallacy. The idea is that if you aren't following a "my country is always right" philosophy, then you are a terrorist who eats puppies and uses the Stars and Stripes to wipe the puppies from your face that you downed with vodka which was also used to soak the Stars and Stripes that you just set on fire with the evil magic you got from satan by performing the Nazi salute while marching through red square.

Nazi is the German shorthand for National Socialism, so your first argument is counter-intuitive. Socialism is not opposing socialism. As for "probably on the far right" I ask that you would back that up with fact rather than opinion. I would, myself, show the governmental takeover of large businesses to argue your point.

Communism, I agree is not the opposite of freedom. Communism is freedom of the government, while enslaving the majority of the population. Capitalism is the freedom of the individual. Americans tend to think of themselves as individuals, and even moreso back in the cold war years, it was a sense of pride to be an individual, not so much anymore.

 

[Spieggelmaus]

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.

Stop calling the NHS free dammit. >_>

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.

Come on, that's like saying if you buy a bag of crisps, then an individual crisp inside might as well be free since it's included with the bag. Or if you pay for an all-inclusiive holiday then your meals are free. Is a TV free if you don't pay anything for the first 12 months? How abstract does the billing system have to be before payment doesn't register as you paying for it?

Christ, people going around calling the NHS free are the reason it's in such a dire state. You can't complain about the shoddy condition of hospitals when "you get it for free so you can't complain". Americans paying directly at least get to demand better standards as paying customers and don't get shot down for daring to want things to be better.

Look, I was tired and said 'free' without wanting to go into detail. I wasn't expecting anyone to be petty enough to try and break down my comment on the grounds of a passing statement.

Also British healthcare is not a monopoly, so people are welcome to go to wherever they want if they aren't happy with the conditions.

And also, who got shot down for daring to want thing in the NHS to be different? I'm quite interested to know

 

[easyace]

Nobody is saying that Obama is like Hitler. It's how Obama's followers perceive him that's concerning. People here him and they're mesmerized. They don't even hear what he's saying. Americans viewed Hitler the same way before September 1939. I don't know Obama's motives, but regardless if he's trying to help people or deceive them it's still a bad idea.
Oh and comparing Nazis and Communists is futile, because either way leads to mass murdering dictators.

 

[Danzaivar]

I don't know what you're thinking, but I NEVER said that the government could do a better job than the private sector. On the contrary, I would rather contract through a private corporation than go through the government.

Well you was talking in hypothetical 'I would always prefer to not have any state option' scenario, and saying no matter what the Governmental version would work better than a private solution and kill it off. That would only happen if the Government could provide a better service in every circumstance.

If a private company and the government are competing fairly, the private one will usually find a niche to thrive in and generally run more efficiently than the governmental one.

By saying "... 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..." you imply that big business can never compete with the Government, which totally flies in the face of free market theory. Answering to voters means the Government will have an arm tied behind it's back, while the private ones free to do whatever it can to make as much money as possible.

Hell just look at the UK banking sector for proof of this. Lloyds, which took Treasury cash, is doing terribly and has the Government telling it to make a profit AND keep rates low is doing horrifically compared to Barclays, which refused the money. Why? Because Barclays doesn't have any ridiculous Governmental red tape holding it back. Any health insurance scheme would go the same way.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I don't know what you're thinking, but I NEVER said that the government could do a better job than the private sector. On the contrary, I would rather contract through a private corporation than go through the government.

Well you was talking in hypothetical 'I would always prefer to not have any state option' scenario, and saying no matter what the Governmental version would work better than a private solution and kill it off. That would only happen if the Government could provide a better service in every circumstance.

If a private company and the government are competing fairly, the private one will usually find a niche to thrive in and generally run more efficiently than the governmental one.

By saying "... 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..." you imply that big business can never compete with the Government, which totally flies in the face of free market theory. Answering to voters means the Government will have an arm tied behind it's back, while the private ones free to do whatever it can to make as much money as possible.

Hell just look at the UK banking sector for proof of this. Lloyds, which took Treasury cash, is doing terribly and has the Government telling it to make a profit AND keep rates low is doing horrifically compared to Barclays, which refused the money. Why? Because Barclays doesn't have any ridiculous Governmental red tape holding it back. Any health insurance scheme would go the same way.

Point taken, but in the case of nationalized health care in America, there are provisions within the bill that will end the private sector. Restriction of new clients to current providers, if your plan changes, you must take the public option, etc etc etc. The private market can only compete with the government when the government allows it to.

Honestly though, it's not in the constitution (you know that little document that nobody gives a damn about anymore) so I'm totally against them doing it.

 

[Willwillwritehiswill]

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

 

[EchetusXe]

I'm not surprised. The people making those comments don't know how their own country works never mind how other countries systems work.

They think that poor people are stupid and can be conned with slick talk and lies. These are the same people who compared Obama with Hitler. I don't really care to be honest. We have the NHS in Britain. If Americans are stupid enough to believe blatant lies then thats their problem.

Nye Bevan was a fucking hero.

 

[willer357]

yes. I don't know what is wrong with just a tiny bit of socialism. In fact, I don't know why socialism is worse than becoming a third-rate country, because we honestly wouldn't have fought it so harshly if it didn't even have the stregnth to hold itself up. I'm not saying that all of America become one big socialism island, but with healthcare, I think it's better than leaving it with the private companies, because we have seen where that leads to.

 

[Danzaivar]

Look, I was tired and said 'free' without wanting to go into detail. I wasn't expecting anyone to be petty enough to try and break down my comment on the grounds of a passing statement.

Also British healthcare is not a monopoly, so people are welcome to go to wherever they want if they aren't happy with the conditions.

And also, who got shot down for daring to want thing in the NHS to be different? I'm quite interested to know

Well you entered a topic talking about the NHS relative to America, and made a blanket statement that's REALLY misleading. Who would oppose getting free health care? Noone. Why do people oppose the NHS then? Because it isn't free at all. It's cheaper than America's system but it costs more than some other countries (Japan, for example) and provides a much worse service (Than Japans, for example).

The NHS IS a monopoly too. If I sign up to bupa, do I still pay National insurance? Does my tax burden go down by 20%, since I'm not using a service that uses 20% of public money? No. I've not 'opted out of the NHS', I've just opted out of it's services. I'm still paying out the wazoo in tax. There's no way you can call it anything but a monopoly when you HAVE to pay for the service, and anything extra is just supplementary.

Based on your last paragraph I'll assume you don't follow UK politics too closely. Trust me when I say that the Tories are now so afraid of touching the NHS that they've promised to match Labours spending plans for it, and play down any talk of ANY kind of reform to the way it works. And if the Tories were happy to wreck mining villages, but daren't touch the most bloated quango in the UK, it means something.

--

I mean I get you want to stick up for the NHS, but even after me picking at your posts constantly you're still saying it's kinda free (Which is totally false) and you've even included the 'Not a monopoly' talk (Which is also false). Spreading misinformation is what the Republicans do, you don't need to join them from the 'for state healthcare' side of the argument.

tdlr: I'll stop picking apart your posts when you stop peddling falsehoods about the NHS

 

[Spieggelmaus]

Look, I was tired and said 'free' without wanting to go into detail. I wasn't expecting anyone to be petty enough to try and break down my comment on the grounds of a passing statement.

Also British healthcare is not a monopoly, so people are welcome to go to wherever they want if they aren't happy with the conditions.

And also, who got shot down for daring to want thing in the NHS to be different? I'm quite interested to know

Well you entered a topic talking about the NHS relative to America, and made a blanket statement that's REALLY misleading. Who would oppose getting free health care? Noone. Why do people oppose the NHS then? Because it isn't free at all. It's cheaper than America's system but it costs more than some other countries (Japan, for example) and provides a much worse service (Than Japans, for example).

The NHS IS a monopoly too. If I sign up to bupa, do I still pay National insurance? Does my tax burden go down by 20%, since I'm not using a service that uses 20% of public money? No. I've not 'opted out of the NHS', I've just opted out of it's services. I'm still paying out the wazoo in tax. There's no way you can call it anything but a monopoly when you HAVE to pay for the service, and anything extra is just supplementary.

Based on your last paragraph I'll assume you don't follow UK politics too closely. Trust me when I say that the Tories are now so afraid of touching the NHS that they've promised to match Labours spending plans for it, and play down any talk of ANY kind of reform to the way it works. And if the Tories were happy to wreck mining villages, but daren't touch the most bloated quango in the UK, it means something.

--

I mean I get you want to stick up for the NHS, but even after me picking at your posts constantly you're still saying it's kinda free (Which is totally false) and you've even included the 'Not a monopoly' talk (Which is also false). Spreading misinformation is what the Republicans do, you don't need to join them from the 'for state healthcare' side of the argument.

tdlr: I'll stop picking apart your posts when you stop peddling falsehoods about the NHS

Just to be clear, I'm not sticking up for the NHS itself, as I do believe that it's service is quite poor, what I am sticking up for is the principle.

Also that still doesn't solve whole getting shot thing.

And can I ask what you would suggest for those whom can't afford to go private if the NHS were removed?

Finally, I believe that it isn't a monopoly as should enough people leave the NHS it would be disbanded just like any other inefficent government service. But I can't be arsed to argue that point anymore.

 

[Danzaivar]

Finally, I believe that it isn't a monopoly as should enough people leave the NHS it would be disbanded just like any other inefficent government service. But I can't be arsed to argue that point anymore.

You have a weird definition of a monopoly my friend.

I personally think if the NHS was removed, you could just give people on low incomes their £1.6k that would have gone to the NHS, they can spend it on whatever they want (Though it would be recommended they buy health insurance). Government adds legislation saying every insurer must offer some basic service that is within that £1.6k a year price tag so everyone can get insured. Put the rest of the money in income tax breaks so people on a decent income have more than enough spare cash now to get decent health insurance (Basic, or more!) and we'd be up there with other modern countries that have some social insurance scheme rather than bloated Government hospitals.

To be fair tho, the Government could just put everyone on Bupa's basic package (1.5k a year) and scrap the NHS, and just doing that would have saved... £100 times 60 million people... £6billion? And I've never heard anyone complain about Bupa.

--

All of a sudden, we have a population that can ALL afford to be insured, and they can choose their provider to make sure they get the best service for the best price. Rather than just get told 'Well the NHS is free, so shut up complaining!'

Plus we've saved quite a bit of money here, so we could lower taxes a bit and maybe stop the brain drain a little...

Don't hold your breath though.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

There is no downside, once the initial costs have been met. The upkeep could be met with a minor increase in tax (here in the UK the tax for the NHS is almost un-noticeable when compared with current US taxes). After all, the petrol costs less than the car. It could provide care for millions, but some still call it even.

If there is ever a reason to like America, it's the reasonable people who weigh the options.

If there is ever a reason to dislike America, it's those who bandy the word 'evil' about.