A nice little article i just read on yahoo news page.. Not meant to start a raging debate, not meant to be inflammatory, just a well written piece on the benefits of a system like the NHS, and the way the NHS is being used as the posterboy for the apocalypse by certain politicians in the US.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/talking_politics/article/55620/
Interesting read and some excellent points made. Hard for a brit to understand why the US are against a free and non-obligatory minimum standard of healthcare for all - it genuinely is. And having seen the recent Obama video, harder still.
This a good read to anyone from the US?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/talking_politics/article/55620/
Interesting read and some excellent points made. Hard for a brit to understand why the US are against a free and non-obligatory minimum standard of healthcare for all - it genuinely is. And having seen the recent Obama video, harder still.
This a good read to anyone from the US?
I think we all agree we need some form of health care reform. But, I don't see the answer to reform being government, as they've helped to lead to the problem with their stringent regulations and subsidies. Health insurance is too expensive for you to purchase on your own, but the government allows employers to purchase it tax free. Any benefit that comes from your employer is taxable except health insurance. Because of this health insurance is accessible, and therefore over used. If you get a fever, your health insurance will cover a visit to the doctor. That's the problem. That drives up costs.
Health care would be affordable if we didn't require designer health plans to replace insurance. But we look at health insurance as a means to go to the doctor if we sprain an ankle. This drives costs up. Someone has to pay for this coverage, and if it's not you, then it's someone else.
It's crazy to think health care should be a right and free. Nothing is free. Food isn't a right. You still have to pay for that. Maybe that can be the next thing we fight for: nationalized food. Eventually maybe we'll be waiting in long lines to get our toilet paper like the Soviet Union.
The UK spends 9.4% of GDP on health care, we spend more like 16%, with worse outcomes. The UK system in particular is socialized beyond what even the left most liberal is pulling for, with even the hospitals and doctors working directly for the government.
Why wouldn't we try a proven program for increasing the quality and coverage of the care for our citizens, especially if it also has the potential to cut costs nearly in half?
A single-payer NHS styled system of medical coverage is the only thing that makes any sense.
Our current system is one of the most expensive and at the same time, worst, in the western world.
Cons can't stand equality and fairness. It's a threat to their perceived hold on power.
And why not free food? We can feed everyone in our country and then some with little or no effort.
Only the money grubbers would mock such an idea.
why is the author sitting in his dinner? Is that kind of like eating with his hands? I don't get europe. Why is the server making friendly churning noises? Could it be because you are sitting in dinner?
Biggest problem I see is people going into the doctor when they have a cold or flu. Its a virus, there isn't much they can do for you. Just stay home and sleep all day, seriously the best cure for a cold or flu ever. Plus it keeps you out of the public and from further spreading it. But then I guess a lot of people don't have the luxury of staying home because our society values money more than health.
This whole we can't have a healthcare system because we has no money is ridiculous.
This whole we can't have a healthcare system because we has no money is ridiculous.
Taking what you and gwiz said together, the right agrument is that we must reform health care because we have no more money to waste by doing what we're doing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ian-birrell-why-i-dont-believe-that-the-nhs-is-sacrosanct-1775088.html
I'll just post what I very brilliantly said in a different thread on this topic...
"Your primary error is that you assume simply because a government plan is in place, that it results in the problem being ‘solved’. I reject that. Just because everyone is covered under a government plan doesn’t mean they are CARED FOR. Public systems are rife with inefficiency, waste, graft, denied service, delays, and rationed care. The same systems that public health advocates claim are ‘fair’ pull money out of the economy, restrict economic freedom, and imprison the people in a bureaucratic net where their lives are budget items at the whim of an uncaring, unfeeling, incompetent, inefficient, and politically mercurial government.
The egregious logical fallacy neolibs make is that they assume because there are poor people, that there MUST be a government system in place to care for them. This OPINION (and that's all it is) is patently untrue. The needs of the poor are easily and efficiently managed at the state, municipal or PERSONAL level through private charitable contributions and volunteerism.
Public option advocates have elected to to address the needs of a small minority of poor people by putting EVERYONE (rich, poor, middle class) into a huge government system whether they need it or not. In the process they surrender thier freedoms and liberties to a massive government which historically has been shown to be unworthy of that trust."
Furthermore your second paragraph is nothing but shrill capitalistic promotionism, health care is not a commodity and shouldn't be treated as such. 1/3 of every health care dollar in the US is spent on red tape with the private insurance. Most people can't afford private insurance. Yet somehow you would like to believe that they are taken care of by charity! HA! and you say a single payer system is Utopian?
Every other developed western nation has a healthcare system I don't see apocalypse raining down on them.
America can fight wars but it can't take care of its own people. HILARIOUS.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208970/Man-collapses-ruptured-appendix--weeks-NHS-doctors-took-out.html
The point Farhad is that every system on the planet - public or private - is facing tremendous challenges of various kinds. Your side of the debate keeps trying to paint a glowing picture of public health care that does not really exist. Public health care systems are NOT panaceas of happiness, contentment, and perfect medical care with low costs. Quite the contrary. They are cumbersome, slow, expensive, routinely deny or delay basic care, and frequently are UNABLE to provide advanced treatments for less common conditions.
The real debate here is what kind of country is America? America was founded as a country where its citizens were specifically protected from government by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not 'give' rights to citizens. It tells government what it CANNOT do. It acknowledges that these rights are God-given to all people, and attempts to ensure that government cannot infringe on them. Ever.
Establishing a public health care system (or any public social system in general) goes against that basic, core of what America is. Making health care a public 'right' gives the government the power to step in and take away your freedom at any time under the rubric of maintaining its 'program'. Even the mere act of taking your tax money to fund the program is a an involuntary removal of finanicial freedom. That isn't what America should be.
I keep hearing comments like, "Every other country is doing this..." So what? Just because a bunch of other nations have foolishly decided to cede freedom and power to thier governments is no good reason to do it here. I also quite often hear equally foolish arguments along the lines of, "What do you have against taking care of the poor?" The American way to care for the poor is to do it at the state, municipal, or personal level through voluntary donations and volunteerism. I do it all the time and it's great. You don't need a 'government system' to take care of the poor. That is a false choice and I reject it utterly.
Even in the very kindest interpretation, swapping to a public system is not going to 'improve' health care or reduce costs. The CBO said so. IT WILL NOT SAVE MONEY. If it isn't going to save money, and isn't going to provide better service then why should we cede huge powers to the government to do this? It would be nothing more than trading one bad system for another system that is equally bad, or potentially worse. The cost for making this change is the sacrifice of personal liberty and freedom. America has always succeeded as a nation of rugged individualists. That's the proper answer here. Constantly whining that "everyone ELSE does it this way" and "wah wah wah why don't you care about the poor?" are nothing but illogical red herrings.
The real question you should be asking yourself should be, "Why should be waste our time creating a worse system just because other countries do it?" Or perhaps, "Why am I opposed to volunteering my time and money at the local level for the poor?"