US Republicans tell lies about the NHS

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by maximusmanc

One of my Aunts is living in New Jersey at the moment, though she is making plans to return to good old England.

She says that over the last year there had been so much drivel and lying on TV about the NHS, and found it baffling that people buy such extreme right wing views. IN any case, thankfully Obama has won the battle for better US healthcare

There were many occasions, says my Aunt, when her usual mild manner was being tested to the point that she felt like throwing furniture at the TV whenever she saw people dissing the NHS on US networks. And seeing Hannan on there unpatriotically slagging off our beloved NHS for Tory political point scoring was very upsetting indeed. The mental image of my 70 year old aunt trying to pick up furniture for chucking at TV brought it home to me about how much British people, especially the older generations, care about our beloved NHS.

A fine vid attacking the UK Daily Mail, which I see as the British equivalent of Fox News/Glenn Beck in the US, dripping pernicious lies into nice people's heads, like Che.*


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI"]YouTube- The Daily Mail Song[/ame]


*Dear Che, don't think I'm ignoring you, I'll respond to your post later.

[marquis66]

Eh, Obama has far from won the war. He made a good push on a front in a single battle. This was far from D-Day.

Here is my issue with this, and I am not anti-socialized medicine. In fact, I see a lot of financial benefit to expanding the coverage to poor/unemployed/ineligible workers. The fact is that I pay my medical bills, and people who can't afford to pay theirs make my health care more expensive. Does wholly socializing the system fix that? Yeah... on some level... but I think reforming the insurance/coverage system overall fixes it better.

I am all for the fair market, but frankly the realization that the US is the only major, industrial nation who doesn't take care of its sick and dying is very convincing. It is just an American ideal that the government should not be providing that kind, or that level of service (yes, yes, roads and bridges... health care is different in our minds!). Reform the system, make it stop penalizing me for paying my bills, and start taking care of the people that can't pay theirs. That is the only way that this system can be fixed in an American idealized way, I suspect. I mean come on, we still have people bitching about the New Deal.

[Chi_town/Philly]

Originally Posted by Florestan

Philidor, can we take a leaf out twitter's book and only allow 140 characters per post?

I'm sorry, Chi, but I wouldn't read these interminable screeds even if I was *against* hcr. Especially given the problems I am having with memory and concentration.

How did you do with Scott's post? If you digested that, maybe you could take on mine, but skip the opening paragraph and the final two paragraphs, as those are the ones that contain the hints of offensive contrary opinion. The central portion consists of a legitimate question- which I will present in edited form:

Originally Posted by Chi_town/Philly

I wonder how non-conventional healing attempts fare- both in the U.S. legislation and in places where socialized medicine already holds sway?

I'm sorry about your situation.
I hope you're taking good care of yourself.
(But please let me speak to my own position- and don't put words in my mouth...)

[Edit:

Originally Posted by marquis66

...Obama has far from won the war. He made a good push on a front is a single battle. This is far from D-Day.

I'm glad it was you who used the combat metaphors. Imagine the reaction if it had been me!]

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by Chi_town/Philly

Now, I'm curious. [This goes out to Scott in Canada, as well.] How do non-traditional and alternative healing attempt regimens fare in places with socialized medicine??

The position in the UK (broadly): if a religious person wishes to kill himself owing to his religious beliefs e.g. a Christian Scientist with appendicitis refusing to go under the knife, he's usually allowed to get on with it.

But if he attempt to kill a child, e.g. a Christian Scientist father refusing permission for his child to undergo an appendectomy, the state will tend to intervene. A judge will order the operation and the state will use force if necessary to ensure the operation occurs.

[Chi_town/Philly]

Okay, max- it seems like it's possible that I can speak reasonably with you on this topic, so let me cite this:

Originally Posted by maximusmanc

...over the last year there had been so much drivel and lying on TV about the NHS, and found it baffling that people buy such extreme right wing views. There were many occasions, says my Aunt, when her usual mild manner was being tested to the point that she felt like throwing furniture at the TV whenever she saw people dissing the NHS on US networks. And seeing Hannan on there unpatriotically slagging off our beloved NHS for Tory political point scoring was very upsetting indeed.

That's as may be, but (at the risk of 'dating' myself) negative depictions of the NHS on TV, even by subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, are nothing new to me. Why, I remember that seeing that the NHS was a frequent target of Benny Hill Show skits. Those memories pre-date my ability to grow facial hair (that's a long time ago). Was Benny being an extreme-right-winger?
Were those send-ups unpatriotic??

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by marquis66

It is just an American ideal that the government should not be providing that kind, or that level of service

I admire that, it's "Cowboy on the Range" stuff: on your horse, trusty sixgun at your side, beholden to no one, the government an irrelevance. It's a type of anarchism and very attractive... on condition you haven't a medical condition.

[Florestan]

Originally Posted by marquis66

Eh, Obama has far from won the war. He made a good push on a front in a single battle. This was far from D-Day.

Here is my issue with this, and I am not anti-socialized medicine. In fact, I see a lot of financial benefit to expanding the coverage to poor/unemployed/ineligible workers. The fact is that I pay my medical bills, and people who can't afford to pay theirs make my health care more expensive. Does wholly socializing the system fix that? Yeah... on some level... but I think reforming the insurance/coverage system overall fixes it better.

I am all for the fair market, but frankly the realization that the US is the only major, industrial nation who doesn't take care of its sick and dying is very convincing. It is just an American ideal that the government should not be providing that kind, or that level of service (yes, yes, roads and bridges... health care is different in our minds!). Reform the system, make it stop penalizing me for paying my bills, and start taking care of the people that can't pay theirs. That is the only way that this system can be fixed in an American idealized way, I suspect. I mean come on, we still have people bitching about the New Deal.

Excellent post. I think you've hit the nail on the head. Traditionally, stuff like roads and bridges have been on one side of the divide between state and private service provision, and healthcare has been on the other.
This is all about gaining acceptance that healthcare should be on the other side of that dividing line:-
- because that's what first world nations do
- because it's fairer
-because it's cheaper

I accept that ideologically it's a big step, but (I know you know this) moving that one area of service provision across the state/private line does not mean that a socialist regime will follow. It's not a slippery slope or a gateway drug. Nations that have had state health provision for decades (65 years in the UK) do not suddenly or gradually become carbon copies of the USSR.
The fact is, state health provision provides greater efficiencies and costs far less than piecemeal systems where people fall through the insurance gap.
Politicians who ideologically oppose state health provision are, ironically, squandering taxpayers' money unnecessarily - all for ideology. It makes you wonder who the real Stalinists are.

[marquis66]

Originally Posted by Florestan

This is all about gaining acceptance that healthcare should be on the other side of that dividing line:-
- because that's what first world nations do
- because it's fairer
-because it's cheaper

We agree on the first and last point. The "human cost" can't be debated, it is true that we do a lousy job of it. The problem is getting people over here to decide that it matters. I had a friend of mine actually say, in response to the passage of the bill, "health care isn't a right". (Pretty sure that 'life' came before 'liberty' in that there Declaration of Independence, but I could be wrong....)

I am not sure that socialized medicine is fairer, though, and the way the bill is now (with a government mandate) it is certainly less fair. What happens now if I don't have insurance? I am responsible for the bill. And if I don't pay it, the costs get rolled off to the people that do. So, it is really the same issue. My cynical self says that there was one reason to put it in the system - to counter the companies who can offer it, and don't merely to abuse their employees, but I suspect they will continue to abuse them.

Let me put it this way. The IT sweatshop that I worked in previously left me on call 24 hours a day for the most mundane things (calls about Excel sheets at 4am on a Sunday, numerous times, for example). And the hours were long, the work tough, and the wages low. For insurance, the owner offered only to pay half of the single employee contribution, no matter which level you would buy into. Let's say $25, so single employees also paid $25. Well, the family level was $275. So, to get insurance for me, Jen and Holden, I would have had to pay $250 a week (I only made $32K... you do the math). Being forced to do that, because of a government mandate, would have hurt. A lot. So that makes socialization seem like a real good solution, but where do the costs come from instead? Taxes. Not a great solution either.

The whole works just suck. Throw them out and start again.

[marquis66]

Originally Posted by Philidor

I admire that, it's "Cowboy on the Range" stuff: on your horse, trusty sixgun at your side, beholden to no one, the government an irrelevance. It's a type of anarchism and very attractive... on condition you haven't a medical condition.

Right on, man. Like I said below in far too many words, the problem is getting that cowboy to give a damn about the poor, single with three kids, black woman in Detroit who blew out a heart valve.

[maximusmanc]

Yes hilarious Daily Mail song