Can't understand why so many Americans woted on a clown like Bush

The BBQ Pit
101

*Originally posted by casdave *

Is there a vested interest in keeping health care in the US the way it is ?
— Yes, it is the best health care in the world because of the way it is. As I have said, when heads of state have health problems they don’t go to England for NHS do they?

Is there a chain of companies and individuals who would stand to lose out if the US were to adopt a National Health policy ?
— Everybody stands to lose, including patients.
— Since you work in NHS, please tell us about the lines to get in lines. Please don’t omit that. If you don’t know about that I can tell you.
I could point out that both Germany and France have systems of health care that are a mix of privately funded schemes and public subsidy, in fact there are some similarities to the US one except that universal coverage has been achieved.
— There is universal coverage here too. As I said, if you are poor here, you get free medical health care. It’s called Medicaid.

Couple of other small things to point out, if you wish to buy private health care in the UK you are perfectly free to do so in schemes exactly the same as the US, in fact many of the companies operating them are the same, surely you don’t think that NHS treatment is compulsory and that there is no alternative ?
— In fact, many buy private health care because NHS sucks. So you pay for health care twice. Once for NHS and once when you really need to see a doctor. Please tell both sides of the story. That’s why we don’t want NHS here.
If private health care were so much better than state care then even a blind man on a galloping horse could see that just about everyone who had the means would reject state care in its favour.
— Just about anyone who can does in England.
If private medicine is so much better then why do private hospitals pay to make use of NHS facilities and staff ?
— Because everyone wants private medicine, so much in fact that they don’t have room for them, so they have to make use of NHS facilities. That’s ironic.

Why do Americans come over to the UK and give birth to their children here on so-called birthing holidays ?
— I’ve never heard of this.

Admittedly a small number but they still got their treatment for free, do you really imagine that those people would do this if our standards of health care were really as portrayed on your media ?
— The operative word is free. Maybe these guys want a freebie? I don’t know, maybe they want English citizenship or something.

Come on folks use your logic here, our NHS is not free, it is free at point of use only, we pay handsomely for it through our taxes.
— That’s exactly my point. You are forced to pay for something you don’t want. And when you try and get it, you can’t get it. So you have to pay for it again when you need it. Socialized medicine sucks.
why is QUINCY such a toolpiece?

Not that it needs any further explanation.
— I think QUINCY is from Belgium.

102

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Monster104 *
**

**
Ok - I got the message.
It’s more like a strong impression I have after reading your posts.

**
I see your point, but this is in teory. I find it hard to believe that the Democrats (which is considered to be pretty conservative and capitalistic abroad) will reduce your freedom bit by bit.
I support (believet or not:)) your right to own guns though. The laws in most European countries are a bit to strict when it comes to this.

**
Don’t you think that you embrace free enterprise a bit too much ?
I have a impression that these big corporations have a strong tendency to criticize any kind of monopoly that the state may have. But they have at the same time no (or less) problems with it when it comes to them selves (Like Microsoft and Bill Gates). Seems like a double standard to me.
Everything seems to be owned by some kind of big multinational corporations these days. It look’s if like they are creating a monopoly to me. They are also, in some cases, a threat to the democracy. Just look how important it is for the politicans to rub their backs. They can also sometimes force the leaders in foreign countries (often from the third world) to give them tax reductions (or similar stuff) under the threat that they will move their factories to another country.
These are just some examples, but they are worth to consider.

Dont misunderstand me here, I’m for free enterprise, but there are a limit for how “free” or how big they should be.

103

Oh dear, this is where I start to get drawn in,…

and so many heads of states don’t have two cents to rub together, anyway not true many go to France, plenty do come here but the in truth the heads of real major staes don’t do this at all - they stay at home because they too have effective healthcare - so most of those visiting heads of state are horrible little tinpot dictators supported and funded by the West.Who is pre-eminent in the world at this ?

Yes it happens but then this was an effect of policies run by the previous right wing administration who made the first steps to breaking the NHS up, they started by introducing a layer of highly paid and largely irrelevant management and created an internal artificialc health-care market.The subsequent diversion of funds away from clinical issues led to the failure to recuit clinical staff.Note the the right wing government concerned had looked toward the US as a model.
They had 18 years to screw up the NHS - that cannot be put right in a amtter of a few years - many were so disillusioned that they went overseas - to the US, their living standards are higher but guess what, not any returness, I met think that the US system is fair or even slightly near to being truly universal despite your assertations that the poor can get treatemnt every single one I have met(and some have returned to work in the NHS) has said that chronic illness for the poor in the US is a scandal.

That’s all for now folks, see you later.

104

QUINCY: Are you a Belgian?

105

*Originally posted by casdave *

and so many heads of states don’t have two cents to rub together, anyway not true many go to France, plenty do come here but the in truth the heads of real major staes don’t do this at all - they stay at home because they too have effective healthcare - so most of those visiting heads of state are horrible little tinpot dictators supported and funded by the West.Who is pre-eminent in the world at this ?
— Are you saying that the King of Jordan was a little tinpot dictator? He had more in common with the UK. Son is 1/2 British and educated at Sandhurst, yet he chose to come here?

Yes it happens but then this was an effect of policies run by the previous right wing administration who made the first steps to breaking the NHS up, they started by introducing a layer of highly paid and largely irrelevant management and created an internal artificialc health-care market.The subsequent diversion of funds away from clinical issues led to the failure to recuit clinical staff.Note the the right wing government concerned had looked toward the US as a model.
They had 18 years to screw up the NHS - that cannot be put right in a amtter of a few years - many were so disillusioned that they went overseas - to the US, their living standards are higher but guess what, not any returness,
— Come on. Like I said, there were Benny Hill jokes about the NHS 30 years ago. Stop making excuses.
I met think that the US system is fair or even slightly near to being truly universal despite your assertations that the poor can get treatemnt every single one I have met(and some have returned to work in the NHS) has said that chronic illness for the poor in the US is a scandal.
— It is not my asertation that even the poor in America can get treatment, it’s the truth. Please don’t make claims about stuff that you don’t know about. Chronic illness for the rich or poor is depressing, the poor find it harder to take due to other circumstances. That’s also the truth.

106

Major Feelgud et al.,

Nobody is saying that health care in the US is bad. King Hussein of Jordan indeed chose the US as his medical point of refuge, because the doctors specialising in his disease were there. Fair enough.

Having said that, the debate about nationalised health care is not one about good or bad. NHS can be badly executed, but it can work pretty flawlessly as well - take my country, for example. Health care for all, paid by taxes. Of course it’s always a major political issue, even here, but I can assure you it works. Whether or not you support the issue of NHS is another thing. Here in Europe, most countries (socialist or not) are pretty much convinced that health care is a basic human right, and should thusly be supplied by the relevant governmental authorities. I tend to agree. I’ve heard a lot of stories of Americans getting in severe financial problems because of a family member falling ill: because of poor insurance (e.g. because they can’t afford better), they have to sell their house to pay for grandpa’s operation. Call me a socialist, but I’d rather not do that.

Monster104: I have to take issue with your statement that a nationalised health care system is “undemocratic” and “socialist”. To me, that smells like a load of Cold War crap. England had NHS under the Torries, and has it now. My country has had a well funtioning NHS under the current -partially socialist- coalition, but under a lot of conservative regimes as well. In fact, we’ve had it for over 40 years.
The point is, that it was once voted for in the House of Commons. It IS a decision of the people, ultimately. There’s nothing undemocratic about it.

A socialist government does not imply a less democratic government. That’s just nonsense. Don’t consider any socialist regime to be the next Communist Nation. They’re not, usually. You want limitations on democracy? OK, here we go.

  1. Why does the US not allow its citizens to smoke marihuana, which is proven to have the same effects as alcohol?
  2. Why can a 17 year old in the US drive a car (a potential weapon - in the hands of a minor), but not legally buy a beer?

Two examples of how the US government restricts its civilians’ choices and possibilities. How undemocratic!
The answer: no, it’s democratic alright, because these laws were once ratified by an elected body. They may be dumb laws, and they may even contradict themselves, but they sure as hell are democratic.

107

wow. You go away for a few days and look at what happens…

  1. major Feelgood. You obviously dont have a clue about Europe. As a whole it is not fucked. Don’t take the Euro as an indication of the Economic state of individual countires. For Example, Countries like my own, Ireland, and Poland have never been in better shape. And I have every right to comment on your Presidential candidate.

  2. monster104. please explain how any opposing view to yours is “socialist”.

anyway, what is wrong with “Socialist”?

108

Look, guys. What do you think insurance is? As many people as possible pool their money together in an attempt to even out the volatility inherent in statistical events such as illness. Some will “win” (i.e. get ill in such a way that they get back more than they put in) and some will “lose” (i.e. end up paying more than they receive). In a privately funded system the winners must balance the losers, with an additional loading for profit and expenses. If it doesn’t then the company will go out of business. In a state funded system then by its very nature this balancing effect is automatically taken care of with taxes.

The consequences of state rather than private provision are manyfold, but there is no fundamental difference between the government or an insurance company running this system. The principle is the same in either case. If you see health care as a basic human right and hence want to have everybody covered by your health care system (as some keep insisting that the US do with medicaid etc), then this still has to be paid for. At this point you may or may not view the private system as breaking down. But as a whole I repeat, there is no fundamental difference between the government or an insurance company running the system.

National health care can be good, it can be bad. You get what you pay for. But it’s no good pretending that the concept is fundamentally flawed. And bringing in red herring rhetoric about socialism really just leads those of us who know better to roll our eyes and add the arguer to our mental lists of those whose advice should be taken with a whole dollop of salt.

regards,

pan

109

Oh no, TwistofFate - he’s seen Benny Hill. That source of all knowledge from “30 years ago” tells him everything that he needs to know about modern European economics.

Depends if you’ve been raised in a system where fightin’ the commies is the paradigm. They’re still catching their breath after the entrenchations of the cold war, don’t pay it no mind.

pan

110

I’ve stayed out of all of this because it looked like it would turn into a pissing contest and guess what, it did.

If a Irish person came here and started ranting about how all you Americans are gun crazy yahoos who don’t have a clue about how to threat your poor I would join you in laughing at the idiot and gladly add a flame or two. Now if you then started making silly comments about Ireland and it’s people I would then get defensive and possibly turn my attentions on you.

So people we are here to learn things and have fun (well at least I am) not to get into a pissing match about whose country is best.

Just the views of a left wing pinko Eurotrash bogtrotter :wink:

111

Fretful Porpentine has recently started a GD on this very issue. The following is just a cut and paste of 2 paragraphs of my reply. Please remeber that Europeans defend their system of health care because they have experienced it - something 1/3 of Americans cannot do (if the stats are to be believed).

Quoting myself:
OK, first thing: ‘Socialised’ is a term designed and promoted (one assumes) by insurance companies to turn Americans off the concept. It’s ‘socialised’ in the same sense as universal education is ‘socialised’ or taxation or death – ‘socialised’ is successful Agitprop b / s that must make the propagandist NRA green with envy. I believe Euro’s think universal free medical care on demand is a birth right that any civilised society should aspire to – a basic human right, a principle to be proud of and it’s an integral part of the value system of the kind of society in which we wish to live. I know of no debate anywhere in Europe – or elsewhere - that questions the fundamental value of this system.

Nor is it anywhere near as expensive as Americans are led to believe – it is, in fact, cheaper than the American system. I will search for exact figures (give me a little slack, this flu is driving me nuts at the moment) but last time I looked Americans spent approx 14% of GNP on a health care system that covered no more than 65% of the population while the average Euro country spent a little less (12% ish) and covered the whole population. The absence of stockholders appears to help achieve better value for money.

112

Well, that all sounds more than a little pompous- the iactual dea (in the other thread) was to address a couple of misconceptions, really ! Hey ho……

113

Some of the Americans here write a lot of humbug about the European “health” system, and we hear words like… Nationalized health care; based on socialism; communism; expencive system; unfair system, undemocratic system etc.

-but I should maybe add the word solidarity, a word I find harder to use when I shall describe the American health care system.

114

Firstly, apologies for my last post - it was badl spelt and not well written, I was on my way out ot work and just happened to catch this thread and had to chip in in a rather hurried manner.

Next I’m going to mve over to Fretful Porcupine’s thread as this is the correct place to discuss this.

If you think I might have anything relevant to contribute feel free to follow.

BTW QUINCY, no point in bitching about another country when you are a guest on their message boards, it’s considered to be less than polite.

115

Coldfire: “Cold War crap” my ass. I was learning the alphabet during the Cold War. It’s not like I lived my entire life through it. Voting on having NHS put in place is a democratic process, I’ll give you that. However, after the people have decided to give the power to the government to have a NHS, the people lose all authority to have a say in how it is run (Which goes back to my point about HMO’s). People have sued HMO’s for poor treatment and lost because they legally surrendered all their power to the HMO. The same thing could happen with NHS, and that doesn’t sound very democratic now, does it?

What the hell do you mean, a socialist government doesn’t imply a less democratic government?? A socialist government is much less democratic, otherwise it wouldn’t be socialist!

Those “limitations” you mentioned are completely bogus. First off, pot is a narcotic while alcohol is not. There have not been any studies that have proved marijuana has the same effects as alcohol.

Second: We do not have a right to drive. It is a priviledge that can be revoked. The states also determine the driving age laws. The federal government has no power to do so. The drinking age laws are in effect to help protect minors for health reasons. Again, this argument is a load of crap.

The U.S. does have laws that are unconstitutional that deprive us of our constitutional democratic rights. It’s a flaw that happens in every legal system in the world. When someone challenges them, the case is brought to the Supreme Court, and if it is truly unconstitutional, the law is made null and void to help preserve our rights.

TwistofFate: If you want an explaination, read the posts in this thread between Quincy and I, and you’ll realize I don’t think any view opposing mine is socialist.

Socialism is bad because it takes power to decide from the people and gives it to the government. The United States is founded on the people having power over the government. Socialism can easily lead to communism and fascism (in extreme cases) as the latter two are founded on the former. In most cases, a government adopts a compromise of democracy and socialism. That government is not a socialist one because the people have some power to decide some things, but neither is it a true democracy since the people lack total authority. That is why socialist programs are fundamentally bad for the U.S. society.

NHS may be acceptable in Europe. It might even work most of the time. However, it is still contrary to the views that my country is established on, since it takes power the people have over the government and gives the government power over the people.

Now, since there is a thread in GD about this, this will be my last post in this thread. I’ll be over there, helping people see the inherent differences in the political and social structures of the U.S and European countries.

116

Monster, I was going to reply and explain a few things to you. You see, I like you, and I generally think you’re a smart guy. But if you really think fascism is based on socialism, my explanations will definately not suffice. You need to hit the books, man. You’re not making any sense whatsoever, and I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you.

I mean this as constructive criticism, regardless of political stance. I may live in a country with a partially socialist government: that doesn’t mean I’m a socialist myself. But as far as the democratic merits of my country go: no matter what coalition if formed after general elections, I fail to see how it would be less democratic than any US government. Even if it were to be 100% socialist.

A final note on NHS and the “loss of control by turning all the power to NHS insitutes”: democracies give power, and they can take it away. If our NHS fails, the Minister of Health is held responsible, and possibly replaced if he or she doesn’t improve the functioning of the NHS. Just like in any democracy, Monster.

If you don’t want me to get mad at you, stop talking out of your ass.

And goddamn it. I did explain it all after all. Still, some extra reading is in order for ya, mate.

117

nah. It’s far more democratic to let people be ill until they can qualify to go to the emergency room. Far more democratic to have health care be a privilege than a right. All hail democracy! :wink:

**
[/QUOTE]

NHS may be acceptable in Europe. It might even work most of the time. However, it is still contrary to the views that my country is established on, since it takes power the people have over the government and gives the government power over the people.

**
[/QUOTE]

Oh what crap! What absolute crap! How does a person paying money (or not being able to afford to pay money) to an insurance company give them power over the government? That just plain doesn’t follow. I think we have more power over our health service because we can VOTE if we don’t like what the government is doing! That’s right - if the government fucks up the health service, we can exercise our democratic right to effect change. Can you?

Monster 104 - a national health care service is no more undemocratic than a national education service.

**
[/QUOTE]

Now, since there is a thread in GD about this, this will be my last post in this thread. I’ll be over there, helping people see the inherent differences in the political and social structures of the U.S and European countries. **
[/QUOTE]

Oh goody. I will be looking forward to that ;). I’m just curious as to why you think you know so fucking much about the inherent differences in the political and social structures of the US and European countries? Read a textbook or two?

118

Monster what are the names of the communist states that have made this easy move from socialism? Most communist or pseudo-communist states that I can find info on, went that route though, civil unrest or social resentment of oppression by occupying forces or existsing hardline monarchies.TTBOMK socialist states tend to stay just socialist states.

119

This is the third time in a week I’ve corrected this particular point, but it’s a real pet peeve of mine.

I’ll say it slowly, and in italics. *You can’t get Medicaid just for being poor. You basically have to be a kid, pregnant (and then it only covers pregnancy-related expenses), or already sick. If you are a poor adult who cannot afford non-urgent or preventive care, you are SOL as far as Medicaid is concerned. *

If you are actively dying, we do have enough compassion as a society to see that you get emergent treatment. If you are seriously ill, you can get Medicaid and seek out treatment. But this encourages the treatment of problems rather than the prevention of problems, which is a really shitty way to go about it.

We can disagree on the merits of universal health care, but let’s not start claiming that we already have it when 43 million Americans would beg to differ.

Dr. J

120

I assume that you’re not accusing the German Texans of hostility towards Europe (German is the third most common language in the state, with Czech, Chinese or Vietnamese after that), and the rednecks generally believe in an isolationist foreign policy, if they care at all. So I assume that you’re either talking about Mexican Americans or Phil Gramm. Which one is it?