You are completely correct in your post.

The rationed system in place in the UK today is a joke, the NHS is run by the government, its employees suffer from delusions of grandeur(hey they are the govnt you know) and the care they provide is limited.

The US system allows people to make a choice, to buy or not to buy insurance, to choose a responsible option or to be irrisponsible.

For those who are responsible in their choices the system is fantastic, for those who choose not to purchase insurance it is terrible, that is the result of the choices we all make as adults.

Welfare recipients are covered by Govnt safety nets(why i do not know) but must accept that they will wait in line behind paying customers.

Jeez. If Americans think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free. Health care is no different than auto repairs or restaurants. It is a service. If you WANT the service, you PAY for the service. To suggest that everyone has a 'right' to health care is asinine. To believe that, you must also believe that a provider has the 'duty' to provide it to you even if you cannot pay. Somebody help me out......what's that word to describe forced labor without compensation? Oh yeah, I remember, it's 'slavery'.

Firstly, good to see you back Pauli you have been missed.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Jeez. If Americans think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free. Health care is no different than auto repairs or restaurants. It is a service. If you WANT the service, you PAY for the service.

O you know it's different, one of those things is necessary for survival should the worst happen!

To suggest that everyone has a 'right' to health care is asinine.

And yet the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system, known for your comparative intellect as a nation are you?

To believe that, you must also believe that a provider has the 'duty' to provide it to you even if you cannot pay. Somebody help me out......what's that word to describe forced labor without compensation? Oh yeah, I remember, it's 'slavery'.

Eh? why wouldn't they be financially compensated?

Wow, I didn't expect that reaction, it seems more people disagree with socialized medicine than I thought.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

Firstly, good to see you back Pauli you have been missed.

Agreed. Good to have you back, Pauli

Eh? why wouldn't they be financially compensated?

But at what rate would they be compensated? In a free financial market, health care providers would be able to set their own rates for procedures and services. If you don't like the rates they charge, you can find another provider. Regardless of the rate, who picks up the tab? I have a problem with forcing someone to pay for a service for someone else. I guess you have no problem with slavery as long as someone can prove to the government that they need a slave.

Originally Posted by Tantal

But at what rate would they be compensated? In a free financial market, health care providers would be able to set their own rates for procedures and services. If you don't like the rates they charge, you can find another provider. Regardless of the rate, who picks up the tab? I have a problem with forcing someone to pay for a service for someone else. I guess you have no problem with slavery as long as someone can prove to the government that they need a slave.

I agree. It bothers me that people pay taxes in order to pay for someone else's healthcare. Some people never have to go to hospital, however they pay thousands towards the NHS during their lifetimes. The system in America is much quicker and it's better quality, America is also the world leader in medical science.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Agreed. Good to have you back, Pauli But at what rate would they be compensated? In a free financial market, health care providers would be able to set their own rates for procedures and services. If you don't like the rates they charge, you can find another provider. Regardless of the rate, who picks up the tab? I have a problem with forcing someone to pay for a service for someone else. I guess you have no problem with slavery as long as someone can prove to the government that they need a slave.

Tantal free markets never ever work like that. You are describing conditions of perfect competition. An oligarchic model is far more likely (think here of barriers to market entry). Now without government regulation it is in the interests of health care providers to collude over prices and charge as much as possible. Thus health care becomes even more expensive. This would be the most likely outcome of privatizing the health service.

I mean this is what seems to happen when things are privatised. They get more expensive and in line with an increase in Director's salaries (often former government members that privatised the industry to begin with)

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Tantal free markets never ever work like that. You are describing conditions of perfect competition. An oligarchic model is far more likely (think here of barriers to market entry). Now without government regulation it is in the interests of health care providers to collude over prices and charge as much as possible. Thus health care becomes even more expensive. This would be the most likely outcome of privatizing the health service.

The answer to this problem is for a few doctors to get together and form a practice with more competitive rates. It works in every other industry. For instance, an auto manufacturer decides it needs to get rid of some inventory, so they offer rebates on their vehicles. It's a pretty simple concept, really; however, since it doesn't involve the use of government force, I doubt you'll go for it.

Originally Posted by Tantal

The answer to this problem is for a few doctors to get together and form a practice with more competitive rates. It works in every other industry. For instance, an auto manufacturer decides it needs to get rid of some inventory, so they offer rebates on their vehicles. It's a pretty simple concept, really; however, since it doesn't involve the use of government force, I doubt you'll go for it.

This makes no sense at all. How do you enforce the 'competitive rates' as you are anti government regulation? It is not a case of setting up doctors in rooms to practice but also involves huge fixed costs for equipment etc and variable costs of admin and support staff. How are standards regulated? Hiow do you ensure equality of provision across a nation or are you happy to have uneven health care. Whatever you think the idea that it is simple, is patently rubbish

Originally Posted by Tantal

It's a pretty simple concept, really; however, since it doesn't involve the use of government force, I doubt you'll go for it.

Nice one Tantal.

Hey btw way what is this smiley for?

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Hey btw way what is this smiley for?

I think it's supposed to be flogging a dead horse!

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

This makes no sense at all. How do you enforce the 'competitive rates' as you are anti government regulation?

You don't enforce anything. You let the market decide. If I went to a doctor for stitches and was quoted a price of $20,000 for 10 stitches, I'd go somewhere else. The only regulation I'd put in place now is a requirement for doctors to put a price list for services in the lobby, or on their website. That way, people would know what they were paying before services were rendered. The way it is now, most people don't know what they're being charged until they get the bill. When you go to a restaurant, do the prices on the menu have anything to do with what you order? I'd just like to know the cost up-front.

It is not a case of setting up doctors in rooms to practice but also involves huge fixed costs for equipment etc.

Equipment designed, engineered, and manufactured by capitalists with profit as the motive.......without which, we'd have none of these machines. Doctors would set fees in such a way as to pay for their fixed costs, including machines, and still have a profit at the end of the month. How big that profit is would be between them and their patients.

How are standards regulated?

Pretty-much the same way they are now. Health care providers would still have licensing requirements, but medical and payment decisions would be made between patient and doctor without government interference.

How do you ensure equality of provision across a nation or are you happy to have uneven health care.

I wouldn't ensure equality of provision. Not everything in life is 'equal'. For instance, there are certain restaurants that I can't afford to eat in and certain things I can't afford to buy. I don't demand that taxpayers subsidize a meal for me at one of these eateries, nor do I petition the government to force them to lower their prices to accomodate me. I eat what I can afford. My son has some serious medical issues. If not for those, I would have a much better standard of living than I do now; however, one has to make sacrifices for the people they love. Besides, under a rationed-care system, we would probably have been told to just abort the pregnancy and try again, since his care would cost the system too much money. Either that, or he would've died very young.

I don't think Marxist Nutter is getting it... It's called CAPITALISM.

Originally Posted by Tantal

You don't enforce anything. You let the market decide. If I went to a doctor for stitches and was quoted a price of $20,000 for 10 stitches, I'd go somewhere else. The only regulation I'd put in place now is a requirement for doctors to put a price list for services in the lobby, or on their website. That way, people would know what they were paying before services were rendered.

Sounds good in theory but in practice it still fails to prevent the consumer getting screwed through oligarchic practices. The only difference you will make is to have a private rather than public monopoly and higher paid execs and higher prices and lower standards of care for the 'consumer'. The fact is the start up costs are too high to allow anyone to enter the market. You don't seem to really indertsand the reality of free market economics. Rather Like an othodox Marxist you merley have blind faith in an outmoded thoery.

The way it is now, most people don't know what they're being charged until they get the bill. When you go to a restaurant, do the prices on the menu have anything to do with what you order? I'd just like to know the cost up-front

Resturants function better in a market situation as it is easier for new businesses to enter the market.

Equipment designed, engineered, and manufactured by capitalists with profit as the motive.......without which, we'd have none of these machines.

Precisely which is why only the richest would be able to enter the market and so essentially you have a restricted oligarchy/monopoly situation which bears a striking resemblance to a state run service except minus the accountability to the people.

Doctors would set fees in such a way as to pay for their fixed costs, including machines, and still have a profit at the end of the month.

But they would be unable to compete with larger firms so back to monopolies again!

How big that profit is would be between them and their patients. Pretty-much the same way they are now.

Exactly only minus accountability and with an huge increase in cost to the consumer as you have no regulation and no competition. Also even if you did have competition it could only be done through a waste in resources i.e does a town really need 10 xray machines for every perosn?)

Health care providers would still have licensing requirements, but medical and payment decisions would be made between patient and doctor without government interference.

Huh?? So government issues liscences to whoever and just don'tt interfere??

I wouldn't ensure equality of provision.

I don't doubt it but then everybody will flood into one town to get the best health care (considering they will all cost the same for reasons mentioned above)

My main problem is that under an NHS type system i am forced to pay.
When it comes to treatment i have to get in line behind people who didnt pay, this is wrong, i have to pay for the care of others and they are treated as a higher priority than me because the Government (and the government controlled NHS) have decided thet lazy people on Benefits are "vulnerable" and as such have extra rights.It is sick, paying customers first, beggars move aside.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

I don't think Marxist Nutter is getting it... It's called CAPITALISM.

http://www.politic.co.uk/liberalism/...html#post75107

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

http://www.politic.co.uk/liberalism/...html#post75107

That's just your word against mine... and a bit of Reagan's.

The whole principle of privatised healthcare is based off the idiotic assumption of the right that your wealth is directly proportional to how hard you have worked and contributed to society. In America, investment bankers who run thousands of peoples' savings into the ground get enormous bonuses and salaries and are thus able to afford the very best healthcare. On the flip side, a charity worker who perhaps puts a large amount of their time and effort into caring for the elderly, for instance, gets a tiny salary, if they even get one at all! Now who would you say is more deserving of healthcare?

When I've travelled in America, I have invariably met people who are desperate for change in the healthcare system. I met a single mother whose husband, the main breadwinner, had died, leaving her with very little. She was working in a shop, but while playing baseball had broken her arm and couldn't afford to have it done. When I met her, the arm was a strange shape since she had been forced to simply strap it to a plank of wood and hope it would heal. Needless to say, this impacted her ability to work, which meant that she couldn't make more money to pay for the arm to be done.

Healthcare is not a service, it is a human right. Conservatives bang on about the right to life with regards to abortion, but a cancer victim who can't pay for their drugs, well sanctity of life goes out of the window then doesn't it! The idea that a free market solves all problems is also incredibly fallacious. Tantal, if I gave you a choice between being shot to death and having your arm broken, it's not really a choice is it? Equally, someone who cannot afford healthcare does not have the choice of whether to pay for it or not.

America may be the leader in medical science, but it is far, far behind other countries in quality of healthcare. The ridiculous nature of the system means that most citizens never see the benefits of advances in healthcare. Take Cuba, which has the finest healthcare system in the world, and it may become obvious that the idea of the free market is not always applicable.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

That's just your word against mine... and a bit of Reagan's.

Actually I pointed out that one of the main people behind the concept of the Free Market at least could recognize its limits. This is far more than you or Regan is/was able to do.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Should we have public or private healthcare?

Public.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Government sponsored health care will legitimatize support for government services generally, and make an activist government acceptable. Once a large number of citizens get their health care from the state, it dramatically alters their attachment to government. Every time a tax cut is proposed, the guardians of the new medical-welfare state will argue that tax cuts would come at the expense of health care -- an argument that would resonate with middle-class families entirely dependent on the government for access to doctors and hospitals.

a) the notion of an 'activist' government is something of a flawed concept - all governments are active in certain spheres of influence or enterprise, even the minimalist ones. A 'passive' government would be one that served no purpose whatsoever. At the root, this is merely a subjective observation on whether you happen to agree with the nature, method, intention and outcome of the government actions in question.
b) you are correct that there is an issue about health spending becoming sacrisanct. Even though I am fully supportive of public health provision, pumping greater and greater levels of cash into the NHS has negative long term effects that raise the cost of provision substantially - however private provision is no better in this regard, if anything it is much, much worse.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Access for low-income individuals can be achieved by means other than socialized medicine, for example, income-related subsidies can function without public provision of either insurance or medical services.

This scenario offers the worst of both worlds, in the sense that the general public would still be footing a huge bill for a service that would offer a massively differing service for those able to top up their government subsidy with private funds. As a taxpayer, I am only prepared to pay for a service that offers universal provision of equal quality to all. There are issues within the current service at the moment that need addressing (postcode lottery etc…), but then the NHS has been suffering death by a thousand cuts since the 1960’s, when the politicians running it no longer themselves believed that it should exist. If we are going to have a public method of provision, then the overriding principle must be that two individuals of vastly differing personal wealth may receive the same quality of treatment regardless of ability to pay – if this principle is dispensed with, then the entire endeavour is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

The word "profit" is considered to be a dirty word by many on the political left, but why? What makes a profit bad? Nothing. On the contrary, profits are very positive. When you come to class in the morning, there is a good chance you either drive a car or ride a bus. Do you think the bus driver and the workers who built your car or the bus did so that you could get to school on time? Of course not, they did because they wanted to make money. Yet their pursuit of a profit benefited them as well as you.

What makes profit bad? Profit-based economic transactions are part of an economic system that (if left uncontrolled) will disproportionately concentrate the currency in circulation into an alarmingly small number of hands. The argument that individual transactions on their own are mutually beneficial does not hold water when you examine the cumulative effect on society as a whole.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

When we examine countries that have embraced socialized medicine, we find long waiting lists, expensive red tape and little concern for the individual. Do you really want to be told which doctor to go to? Do you want to wait years to have necessary medical procedures performed? If so, then socialized medicine is for you.

You also find higher life expectancy and general health levels – which is, ultimately, the point of the system.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

In England we have a universal health care system. The profit motive is effectively removed. Doctors are government employees, and, as such, have far less accountability, as well as lower pay. Can we still expect the best and brightest to strive to be doctors? Probably not. More than likely, they will pursue other careers where they can make more money.

If someone’s motivation for becoming a doctor is purely financial – I don’t want to be treated by them. In fact I’m not even sure I want them to be permitted to practice at all.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

So there you have it. Let me just point out that I don't necessarily disagree with socialized medicine, I'm just in two minds about it. There are equally good arguments for either side.

Is this then simply a case of "Reagan hated it, therefore it must be bad" ?

Originally Posted by JAMC

Public. Is this then simply a case of "Reagan hated it, therefore it must be bad" ?

No, not at all. I agree with alot of what Reagan believed in, and I know he disapproved of socialized medicine, so I considered his reasoning and also looked in to the advantages and disadvantages and I still can't really make my mind up.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Should we have public or private healthcare?

Public without a doubt.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Today, in England we have the NHS, the estimated cost of the NHS in England in 2008 is £91.7 billion and today it is the world's largest publicly funded health service.

It's been over funded before! It had a surplus in 2008: BBC NEWS | Health | Surplus 'fantastic opportunity'

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Government sponsored health care will legitimatize support for government services generally, and make an activist government acceptable.

Isn't that a good thing? The second the government stops being run like a growing business, the sooner people in the healthcare system will stop complaining. Our economy needs to stabilise.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Access for low-income individuals can be achieved by means other than socialized medicine, for example, income-related subsidies can function without public provision of either insurance or medical services.

As oil prices rise, the poor get left behind. Again. Conditions drop below the poverty line...

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

The word "profit" is considered to be a dirty word by many on the political left, but why? What makes a profit bad? Nothing. On the contrary, profits are very positive. When you come to class in the morning, there is a good chance you either drive a car or ride a bus. Do you think the bus driver and the workers who built your car or the bus did so that you could get to school on time? Of course not, they did because they wanted to make money. Yet their pursuit of a profit benefited them as well as you.

Consumerism and Profit are outdated concepts, as is currency. Resources must be spread evenly to maximise everybody's experience of life. Limited competition in the terms of danger pay and bonuses for more-qualified jobs. I support the type of economy where doctors, scientists, social/charity workers, farmers, miners, police officers and soldiers get paid a larger surplus (all jobs should have a surplus) than lawyers, accountants, stock brokers, managers and the likes who work in a safe 9 to 5 environment.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

When we examine countries that have embraced socialized medicine, we find long waiting lists, expansive red tape and little concern for the individual. Do you really want to be told which doctor to go to? Do you want to wait years to have necessary medical procedures performed? If so, then socialized medicine is for you.

Private and Public co-exist in the UK for this exact reason. It doesn't make it right, a stock broker shouldn't be entitled to better medical care than a soldier or a police officer.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Doctors are government employees, and, as such, have far less accountability, as well as lower pay. Can we still expect the best and brightest to strive to be doctors? Probably not. More than likely, they will pursue other careers where they can make more money.

Doctors make mistakes and private healthcare hangs them out to dry. Then end up penniless without any job prospects (except unskilled labour). Is that how you want the best and brightest to be treated when they are merely human? With the likes of InjuryLawyers4U, lawsuit culture is being imported into the UK and it will only make it harder and more frustrating for the taxpayer if the taxpayer sues a doctor.

£90,000-£172,000 per annum is a very good salary at early thirties. My dad doesn't even earn that much and he's been in the IT Defence business longer. Doctors don't need to be millionaires to have a comfortable lifestyle or be happy.

I am going in to medicine to help people as I love working with people, and to be at the forefront of science. Money is a benefit but doctors are overworked and have to make huge sacrifices without taking accountability into account (excuse the pun).

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

So there you have it. Let me just point out that I don't necessarily disagree with socialized medicine, I'm just in two minds about it. There are equally good arguments for either side.

Thank you for making me aware to benefits.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

No, not at all. I agree with alot of what Reagan believed in, and I know he disapproved of socialized medicine, so I considered his reasoning and also looked in to the advantages and disadvantages and I still can't really make my mind up.

What is the crux of the argument as far as you're concerned?

I believe the NHS should remain entirely in the state hands. I believe that the NHS should always receive as much funding as it needs to function.

I believe where the NHS cannot treat, it should pay for the patient to go under private company/foreign health service treatment.

I do not believe the NHS should not make a profit. All extra money from the NHS should be immediately invested into the NHS.

Now here comes the Conservative part - The NHS needs urgent reform and needs extensive reform at that to ensure maximum efficiency. The more efficient, the less the costs, the more can be pumped into other issues such as cancer drugs.

Bet you didn't expect that

Originally Posted by DougieG

The whole principle of privatised healthcare is based off the idiotic assumption of the right that your wealth is directly proportional to how hard you have worked and contributed to society.

Sometimes, but not always. For instance, I could make more money in the private sector than I do now. I enjoy my job and enjoy serving my fellow citizens, so I work for less than I could make elsewhere.

In America, investment bankers who run thousands of peoples' savings into the ground get enormous bonuses and salaries and are thus able to afford the very best healthcare.

And they should go to prison for it.

On the flip side, a charity worker who perhaps puts a large amount of their time and effort into caring for the elderly, for instance, gets a tiny salary, if they even get one at all!

Should've been an investment banker.

Now who would you say is more deserving of healthcare?

A criminal vs. a social worker? What about a very honest and ethical investment banker who invested his/her clients' money wisely, creating for them a better standard of living? In that case, I'd say whoever can pay for it.

She was working in a shop, but while playing baseball had broken her arm and couldn't afford to have it done. When I met her, the arm was a strange shape since she had been forced to simply strap it to a plank of wood and hope it would heal.

Complete crap. Any County-funded Emergency Room would've set the arm and cast it properly. You were either lied to, or she didn't make the effort.

Healthcare is not a service, it is a human right.

If someone else is obliged to provide it for you, it's a service.

Conservatives bang on about the right to life with regards to abortion

Because we believe that it's murder and the child has absolutely no choice in the matter

..... but a cancer victim who can't pay for their drugs, well sanctity of life goes out of the window then doesn't it!

No, they are free to purchase the drugs or find some charity willing to purchase the drugs for them.

The idea that a free market solves all problems is also incredibly fallacious.

Not all, but most.

Tantal, if I gave you a choice between being shot to death and having your arm broken, it's not really a choice is it?

No, but I wouldn't want the fruits of another man's labor confiscated at the point of the government's gun to provide for my care. Just because I received the benefit second-hand doesn't mean that I'm not complicit in this robbery.

America may be the leader in medical science, but it is far, far behind other countries in quality of healthcare.

Remember that when you need a procedure that's only available here. Your government would let you die before sending you to the U.S. to get the procedure.

Take Cuba, which has the finest healthcare system in the world, and it may become obvious that the idea of the free market is not always applicable.

So THAT explains why all the Floridians are risking death on the high seas in makeshift rafts to get to Cuba..............oh, wait..........

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

No, not at all. I agree with alot of what Reagan believed in, and I know he disapproved of socialized medicine, so I considered his reasoning and also looked in to the advantages and disadvantages and I still can't really make my mind up.

Most Americans medical needs are covered by an employers scheme. Medicaid is for the very poor and another scheme called Medicare caters for the elderly.

The problem for 46 million working Americans is that they are not wealthy enough to afford health insurance premiums therefore, not earning enough to afford health cover. They fall between two stools [or should I say three stools?]. Not enough income to pay the heavy insurance cover and not old enough to qualify for medicare and not poor enough for Medicaid.

These are the people likely to succumb to untreated medical conditions which would either end in their demise or push them into premature long term illness, dependant on Medicaid, when, if receiving proper timely treatment they could lead an active working life.

These are the lost souls of the American medicine for profit culture and the butt of the scorn the "I'm alright Jack" individuals who are fortunate to be in good paying occupations.

Read this very informative link:

Healthcare - it's make or break for Barack Obama | World news | The Observer

Originally Posted by Expounder

Most Americans medical needs are covered by an employers scheme. Medicaid is for the very poor and another scheme called Medicare caters for the elderly.

The problem for 46 million working Americans is that they are not wealthy enough to afford health insurance premiums therefore, not earning enough to afford health cover. They fall between two stools [or should I say three stools?]. Not enough income to pay the heavy insurance cover and not old enough to qualify for medicare and not poor enough for Medicaid.

These are the people likely to succumb to untreated medical conditions which would either end in their demise or push them into premature long term illness, dependant on Medicaid, when, if receiving proper timely treatment they could lead an active working life.

These are the lost souls of the American medicine for profit culture and the butt of the scorn the "I'm alright Jack" individuals who are fortunate to be in good paying occupations.

Read this very informative link:

Healthcare - it's make or break for Barack Obama | World news | The Observer

If the pther 300 million Americans can be responsible and purchase health insurance, why cant these 46 million?What excuses them from responsibility?
Why should some poor fellow breaking his back all day at work be forced to pay a cut of his wages to feed clothe and treat another who sits around scratching his piles all day?

LOL this debate's going to be funny to watch as the Yanks finally bite the bullet. I hear from American friends that Obama's expected to win or, rather, the private insurers expect to lose so there's very little anti-socialised medicine lobbying going on. Which is interesting in itself. You'd expect them to be pulling out all the stops.

At root it's a political not an economic question. The cost will be vast but America's a rich nation and can afford it. Plenty of Chinese capitalists will lend them the money, just as Britain borrowed from America to start the NHS in 1948. So the economic argument's a red herring.

American capital has always resisted the concept of socialised medicine for straightforward political reasons. If Americans live in fear of ill health, of not being able to give their children the treatment they need - a terrible thing to do to any parent - it provides a tremendously powerful self-help incentive. And those who don't self-help - who can't or won't earn enough money to take out a policy - must go to the wall for good, social-Darwinist reasons.

So the absence of socialised (or 'socialist') medicine in the US is a central plank of US capitalist ideology. It brings market competition theory - where the efficient survive while the inefficient go under - right to the heart of people's lives: their personal survival and the survival and well-being of their children.

That's why the lack of lobbying from the insurance companies is intriguing. You'd expect them to be fighting to the death to resist socialist medicine. In capitalist terms it's highly un-American. Why aren't they screaming like goosed schoolgirls as this precious aspect of US capitalism comes under attack?

Originally Posted by pauli007001

If the pther 300 million Americans can be responsible and purchase health insurance, why cant these 46 million?What excuses them from responsibility?
Why should some poor fellow breaking his back all day at work be forced to pay a cut of his wages to feed clothe and treat another who sits around scratching his piles all day?

Pauli, not every one who works, breaking his/her back is earning enough money to keep a roof over his/her head feed the family and pay all the other bills and pay health insurance to cover the family.

As there are in Britain, I'm sure there are many in the US working are their butts off for a pittance. Their contribution to society is no less in time and effort as any one else's, it's just fate they happen to be in low paid jobs. Not every one can be a high flier or someone who is fortunate to be well paid enough to afford private health insurance.

These people pay ordinary taxes out of their salary to which cover local amenities and law enforcement and can just about survive on whats left.

I do agree every country has it's fair share of scroungers, The USA is not alone in this problem,it can only be reduced, [it will never go away], but should we punish genuine people who work and give their basic skills which is all that they have to give to their employer only to allow them to be deprived of medical treatment because if their inability to pay?

You are taking the stance that anyone who can't afford health insurance must be lazy and bone idle condemning those in the low wages bracket to a life without proper medical cover, or accrue debts to fund the cover which could never be repaid, remaining in debt for life.

Originally Posted by Expounder

Pauli, not every one who works, breaking his/her back is earning enough money to keep a roof over his/her head feed the family and pay all the other bills and pay health insurance to cover the family.

As there are in Britain, I'm sure there are many in the US working are their butts off for a pittance. Their contribution to society is no less in time and effort as any one else's, it's just fate they happen to be in low paid jobs. Not every one can be a high flier or someone who is fortunate to be well paid enough to afford private health insurance.

Agreed. There are many in Britain who are working as hard as they possibly can for a pittance and yet we add insult to injury by not giving them benefits, rather we give benefits to lazy slackers who do not work at all. Or even worse, we give benefits to foreigners who have only just come to the country and have contributed nothing to our country.


However, as I am sure many will agree we do need an NHS that provides top quality health service to anyone who needs it. If those on higher incomes wish to go for private health care, so be it.

However, the NHS is one service that should always receive the funding it requires - of course after reform

Originally Posted by Balthazar

LOL this debate's going to be funny to watch as the Yanks finally bite the bullet. I hear from American friends that Obama's expected to win or, rather, the private insurers expect to lose so there's very little anti-socialised medicine lobbying going on. Which is interesting in itself. You'd expect them to be pulling out all the stops.

I think you'll find in the link in my post that" Formidable forces are lining up against Obama on the Social medicare issue" they even have Democratic Senators on the pay roll.

At root it's a political not an economic question. The cost will be vast but America's a rich nation and can afford it. Plenty of Chinese capitalists will lend them the money, just as Britain borrowed from America to start the NHS in 1948. So the economic argument's a red herring.

Exactly................................

American capital has always resisted the concept of socialised medicine for straightforward political reasons. If Americans live in fear of ill health, of not being able to give their children the treatment they need - a terrible thing to do to any parent - it provides a tremendously powerful self-help incentive. And those who don't self-help - who can't or won't earn enough money to take out a policy - must go to the wall for good, social-Darwinist reasons

.

Well said.......................................just usable objects to be discarded.

So the absence of socialised (or 'socialist') medicine in the US is a central plank of US capitalist ideology. It brings market competition theory - where the efficient survive while the inefficient go under - right to the heart of people's lives: their personal survival and the survival and well-being of their children

That's why the lack of lobbying from the insurance companies is intriguing. You'd expect them to be fighting to the death to resist socialist medicine. In capitalist terms it's highly un-American. Why aren't they screaming like goosed schoolgirls as this precious aspect of US capitalism comes under attack?

As the link mentioned, They are fighting it. "it comes in the guise of front groups whose adverts fill the air ways in campaign donations to Republican and Democratic politicians alike seeking to buy loyalty. During 2008 alone the health care sector gave $90m to democratic politicians and $75m to Republicans....................the industry has specifically targeted so called "blue dog" moderate democrats aiming to peel off support in Obama's own party".

Obama has a real fight on his hands, will he succeed where other have failed?

Originally Posted by Expounder

Pauli, not every one who works, breaking his/her back is earning enough money to keep a roof over his/her head feed the family and pay all the other bills and pay health insurance to cover the family.

As there are in Britain, I'm sure there are many in the US working are their butts off for a pittance. Their contribution to society is no less in time and effort as any one else's, it's just fate they happen to be in low paid jobs. Not every one can be a high flier or someone who is fortunate to be well paid enough to afford private health insurance.

These people pay ordinary taxes out of their salary to which cover local amenities and law enforcement and can just about survive on whats left.

I do agree every country has it's fair share of scroungers, The USA is not alone in this problem,it can only be reduced, [it will never go away], but should we punish genuine people who work and give their basic skills which is all that they have to give to their employer only to allow them to be deprived of medical treatment because if their inability to pay?

You are taking the stance that anyone who can't afford health insurance must be lazy and bone idle condemning those in the low wages bracket to a life without proper medical cover, or accrue debts to fund the cover which could never be repaid, remaining in debt for life.

Im calling those who take from a system without paying in Lazy.Those in the USA who dont purchase Health Insurance are irrisponsible.I see them complaining about the cost of insurance whilst swilling back pitchers of Bud at the local.
Not all manual workers are low paid, in the US a labourer will earn 65k a year.A school teacher earns 56K.Of course teaching is a part time job but thats a different story.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Agreed. There are many in Britain who are working as hard as they possibly can for a pittance and yet we add insult to injury by not giving them benefits, rather we give benefits to lazy slackers who do not work at all. Or even worse, we give benefits to foreigners who have only just come to the country and have contributed nothing to our country.


However, as I am sure many will agree we do need an NHS that provides top quality health service to anyone who needs it. If those on higher incomes wish to go for private health care, so be it.

However, the NHS is one service that should always receive the funding it requires - of course after reform

The above is exactly what will happen in twenty years in the US if Obama gets his way. Otherwise right-wing, freedum lovin, I-stand-on-my-own-two-feet, rebel flag wavin, Republican gun nuts will favour the US national health service. It's what happened in Britain if you go back to the debates of the 1940s, and it's now impossible for any British national politician to get elected unless s/he favours pegged or increased funding for the good old NHS.

Sure, right-wingers grumble about 'reform' and 'foreigners' - seemingly unaware that the NHS has run on foreign labour since the 1950s - but they support it in principle. Only a few wild-eyed free marketeers on the far right of the Conservative Party are prepared to come out and question the principle of universal health care free at the point of use. If any constituency party selected one as a Parliamentary candidate the Tory Party leadership would have hysterics and get them deselected in about ten seconds.

The only way to defend the current US system is to come out honestly and argue for social Darwinism: that poor people, the old, the very young, and the unfortunate, must be punished by the market for being poor, old, young or unfortunate; and that punishment should take the form of denying them the medical treatment they need. Thus the gene pool is improved - the poor etc die out as they're left to expire on the pavement (sidewalk) - and their dead bodies provide a lesson to survivors so they work hard, save their money, and line the pockets of a health insurance company.

Anyone prepared to bite the bullet? Some have come close on this thread but no one's actually said it yet. Come on. Chop chop. Which free marketeer wants to be first? Who wants to argue that their poor, sick, old, young and unfortunate neighbours continue to be abused in this manner?

Originally Posted by Expounder

I think you'll find in the link in my post that" Formidable forces are lining up against Obama on the Social medicare issue" they even have Democratic Senators on the pay roll.

Woops I missed that. Thanks! Frankly, I'm glad they're fighting. It's such an easy debate for the left to win. Plus it's pure socialism - everyone chipping in for the common good - so it makes right-wing Republicans gobble like turkeys, which is always amusing to watch. It's time - long overdue - the US had a good dose of socialism, and the health care debate is the perfect vehicle to deliver it.

I love how you socialists are so generous with other people's money. How caring of you.

Originally Posted by Tantal

I love how you socialists are so generous with other people's money. How caring of you.

When Britain negotiated the loan - chief negotiator: John Maynard Keynes no less - from US bankers in 1945 to fund the launch of the NHS it was a broadly commercial loan. The last repayment was paid around 2001. So sure, it was 'other people's money' but why can't friends lend cash to each other? Or are you a Muslim fundamentalist who disapproves of usury?

Keynes, at the start of the negotiations, sought a grant not a loan. Supported by Churchill he felt Britain was owed the money by America for standing firm, and alone, against Hitler for two long years while America sat on its hands and appeased its domestic fascists. But the Yankee bankers demanded their pound of flesh so a loan it was.

Incidentally, should you care to explain why you wish to see your poor or unfortunate neighbours, and their children, and their ageing parents, continue to suffer from untreated illness, or receive sub-standard care, I'm all ears. Specifically, why do you wish to see your neighbours abused on medical grounds? Is it to teach them, and others, a social-Darwinian lesson? Are you conniving in a 'gene-pool clearance operation' to keep capitalism healthy?

But if you decide to duck the question - the right-wing, free-market, anti-socialised medicine argument is tricky - I understand.

I am not sure about your statement about foreign labour at all - More recently I would agree, because the NHS pays not enough to keep British staff. However, change it being made. In many small hospitals and care homes they are kicking out all the foreign workers in support of British workers.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

In many small hospitals and care homes they are kicking out all the foreign workers in support of British workers.

If this is true I doubt British workers will want the work. No British worker in his right mind accepts a minimum wage job. The rate's set far too low. So they'll have to re-hire the foreign workers. Which is why I don't believe it's true. Why would any small hospital or care home sack its workforce only to have to re-hire it a week later? It doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Im calling those who take from a system without paying in Lazy.Those in the USA who dont purchase Health Insurance are irrisponsible.I see them complaining about the cost of insurance whilst swilling back pitchers of Bud at the local.
Not all manual workers are low paid, in the US a labourer will earn 65k a year.A school teacher earns 56K.Of course teaching is a part time job but thats a different story.

Refering to low paid US workers and those who have been made unemployed rich thieving layabout bankers and those who gamble recklessly with the the country's economy, would you begrudge them some modicum of social life?

After all this is the reason they work in the first place. If you work for peanuts and can't socialise there is no point being on this planet.

Originally Posted by Expounder

would you begrudge them some modicum of social life?

Yes, I wondered about that. I don't see why an uninsured US citizen shouldn't enjoy a pint of beer. I'd encourage him to have several, in the hope of forgetting his uninsured state.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

When Britain negotiated the loan - chief negotiator: John Maynard Keynes no less - from US bankers in 1945 to fund the launch of the NHS it was a broadly commercial loan. The last repayment was paid around 2001. So sure, it was 'other people's money' but why can't friends lend cash to each other? Or are you a Muslim fundamentalist who disapproves of usury?

Keynes, at the start of the negotiations, sought a grant not a loan. Supported by Churchill he felt Britain was owed the money by America for standing firm, and alone, against Hitler for two long years while America sat on its hands and appeased its domestic fascists. But the Yankee bankers demanded their pound of flesh so a loan it was.

Incidentally, should you care to explain why you wish to see your poor or unfortunate neighbours, and their children, and their ageing parents, continue to suffer from untreated illness, or receive sub-standard care, I'm all ears. Specifically, why do you wish to see your neighbours abused on medical grounds? Is it to teach them, and others, a social-Darwinian lesson? Are you conniving in a 'gene-pool clearance operation' to keep capitalism healthy?

But if you decide to duck the question - the right-wing, free-market, anti-socialised medicine argument is tricky - I understand.

The treatment of Britain post war by the US was shameful, while every penny of Lease Lend and Marshall Aid sent by America was forced to be repaid, Germany received generous loans at greatly reduced rates to rebuild their economy.

The US made sure that Britain's economy remained crippled to keep it out of the running as a trade competitor for many years post war, leaving the field open for the expansion of American industry which was the only undamaged world economy. Special relationship?..............

Originally Posted by Expounder

The treatment of Britain post war by the US was shameful, while every penny of Lease Lend and Marshall Aid sent by America was forced to be repaid, Germany received generous loans at greatly reduced rates to rebuild their economy.

The US made sure that Britain's economy remained crippled to keep it out of the running as a trade competitor for many years post war, leaving the field open for the expansion of American industry which was the only undamaged world economy. Special relationship?..............

I've just returned from a holiday in Norfolk where the American troops and airmen stationed there during the war are remembered with great affection (particularly by some of the older women ). When they arrived (late, but better late than never) they were wonderful. But it's true - the post-war US government behaved like sh*ts towards Britain. They should say sorry.

I wonder what sort of rate Obama would get from the Chinese for a loan to fund start-up costs for a US NHS? They're flushed with cash atm and don't know what to spend it on. Can't he just give them General Motors in exchange for, say, 1% over 60 years? Anyone know what size loan he needs?

Originally Posted by Balthazar

I've just returned from a holiday in Norfolk where the American troops and airmen stationed there during the war are remembered with great affection (particularly by some of the older women ).

Given the lack of competition over here at time that's no big surprise is it?

When they arrived (late, but better late than never) they were wonderful. But it's true - the post-war US government behaved like sh*ts towards Britain. They should say sorry.

Sad to say Roosevelt's government treated us no better during the early days of the war, forcing us to pay top dollar for out of service ships and equipment and refusing to allow us anything on credit.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

Given the lack of competition over here at time that's no big surprise is it?

Sad to say Roosevelt's government treated us no better during the early days of the war, forcing us to pay top dollar for out of service ships and equipment and refusing to allow us anything on credit.

They even made us pay for some crap equipment that was sent to the bottom of the Atlanic by German Uboats.

Having said, that, without the Yanks, their industral capacitiy, and courageous sevicemen, we would have been up the creek without a paddle. When they did get stuck in they were the business.

Three cheers for the Liberty the Sherman and the DC7....................Sorry, forgot the Fortress.

Originally Posted by Expounder

They even made us pay for some crap equipment that was sent to the bottom of the Atlanic by German Uboats.

Having said, that without the Yanks, their industral capacitiy, and courageous sevice men we would have been up the creek without a paddle. When they did get stuck in they were the business.

Three cheers for the Liberty the Sherman and the D7...............

Oh absolutely! Still don't want to give them all the credit, for a tiny little island we did pretty good whilst we waited for them!

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

Oh absolutely! Still don't want to give them all the credit, for a tiny little island we did pretty good whilst we waited for them!

So did the Germans. It took, on average, three Yanks to kill one German after D-Day. That was partly due to the light armour necessary in a seaborne invasion, but man for man, tank for tank the Germans were roughly twice the fighting men of the average Yankee. But we are talking about the nation defeated in Vietnam by rice farmers in pyjamas so they did pretty well, all things considered.

Which is a further argument for a US national health service. You want your fighting men to be physically fit. Private sector medicine is incapable of delivering a consistently strong, physically well-formed, population. Why? Because it puts profits before the national good. So those Americans who continue to favour private sector medical provision are not patriots: they put private profit before America's safety.

Question for the free marketeers on this thread: why are you being so unpatriotic? Why don't you love America and want it to be strong and safe?

Originally Posted by Balthazar

So did the Germans. It took, on average, three Yanks to kill one German after D-Day. That was partly due to the light armour necessary in a seaborne invasion, but man for man, tank for tank the Germans were roughly twice the fighting men of the average Yankee. But we are talking about the nation defeated in Vietnam by rice farmers in pyjamas so they did pretty well, all things considered.

Which is a further argument for a US national health service. You want your fighting men to be physically fit. Private sector medicine is incapable of delivering a consistently strong, physically well-formed, population. Why? Because it puts profits before the national good. So those Americans who continue to favour private sector medical provision are not patriots: they put private profit before America's safety.

Question for the free marketeers on this thread: why are you being so unpatriotic? Why don't you love America and want it to be strong and safe?

Good point, this is a very solid argument to maintain a healthy Nation, but mindsets have to be changed in the US, they have been so brainwashed with years of Communist bogie's by the right wing elite, many go into petrified shock when the word "social" appears connected to anything American.

In fact dare I say the right wing establishment have proved much better at brain washing than the Russian Communists ever were.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

If this is true I doubt British workers will want the work. No British worker in his right mind accepts a minimum wage job. The rate's set far too low. So they'll have to re-hire the foreign workers. Which is why I don't believe it's true. Why would any small hospital or care home sack its workforce only to have to re-hire it a week later? It doesn't make sense.

They got rid of the foreign workers and had a surge in British applicants.
The care home my mum works at is made up entirely of English workers.