»

[Shaki]

Originally Posted by Dave

Taking the left-wing falsehoods, half truths, and unattributed speculation the Guardian regularly uses to attack their opponents when they run out of cogent arguments out of the equation, what have we got? A story that is simply about Obama's political opponents, not to mention the majority of the people he represents, not wanting to use the NHS as a model for US healthcare provision. That seems like an eminently sensible view to me, given that the NHS is too expensive for what it is, riddled with beaureacracy, poorly managed and unable to provide services effectively and in a timely fashion in a great number of cases. Is that not a fair view? Would anyone who has ever worked in the NHS, or used their services challenge any of those statements?

There's no such thing as free healthcare, and what many americans have realised is that Obama's plan will mean that they will not only have to pay for it with their tax dollars, but also at the point of service when the "free" care they have been promised fails to materialise due to poor management at government level and through lack of funding. Of course there should be free medical care for those who most need it or can't afford insurance, but those that can should make their own provision. That's just good common sense, as the story of the NHS, and every other socialised medical plan around, is that the government will invariably let you down.

What we have got here is opponents to Obama's healthcare proposal peddling uninformed sensasionalist garbage which preys on the mindset of the uneducated republoyanks who, more than anything in the world, don't want to have anything in common with Russia.

I appreciate that this isn't uncommon in politics but it always grates.

Whilst you may be able to put forward a compelling argument against socialised medical care I presume, although I may be wrong, that the vast majority of the American populace who oppose it couldn't tell you why they do, other than because the British have notoriously bad teeth and Communism is evil.

[KennyS]

Originally Posted by Dave

Taking the left-wing falsehoods, half truths, and unattributed speculation the Guardian regularly uses to attack their opponents when they run out of cogent arguments out of the equation, what have we got? A story that is simply about Obama's political opponents, not to mention the majority of the people he represents, not wanting to use the NHS as a model for US healthcare provision. That seems like an eminently sensible view to me, given that the NHS is too expensive for what it is, riddled with beaureacracy, poorly managed and unable to provide services effectively and in a timely fashion in a great number of cases. Is that not a fair view? Would anyone who has ever worked in the NHS, or used their services challenge any of those statements?

There's no such thing as free healthcare, and what many americans have realised is that Obama's plan will mean that they will not only have to pay for it with their tax dollars, but also at the point of service when the "free" care they have been promised fails to materialise due to poor management at government level and through lack of funding. Of course there should be free medical care for those who most need it or can't afford insurance, but those that can should make their own provision. That's just good common sense, as the story of the NHS, and every other socialised medical plan around, is that the government will invariably let you down.

...because, after all, there is no history of private healthcare doing absolutely everything it can to avoid actually paying out. No, those guys can be relied upon without exception.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by KennyS

...because, after all, there is no history of private healthcare doing absolutely everything it can to avoid actually paying out. No, those guys can be relied upon without exception.

You're mistaking private healthcare providers with insurance companies. If you pay for private healthcare, you get private healthcare.

Why would a universal, government-backed insurance scheme be in any way preferable to a private one tailored to one's own needs, anyway?

[KennyS]

Originally Posted by Dave

You're mistaking private healthcare providers with insurance companies. If you pay for private healthcare, you get private healthcare.

Yeah, and if you can pay, you're very well off - but for the vast majority of people if your insurance messes you about, you're not getting private healthcare, so the point is moot. According to Harvard Law School, 60% of all personal bankruptcies can be traced back to funding healthcare.

Why would a universal, government-backed insurance scheme be in any way preferable to a private one tailored to one's own needs, anyway?

Precisely because it is universal. Everyone can access it. You can dress it up any way you like but the politics of private healthcare are fundamentally selfish. The subtext of pretty much everything I've read in favour of it is an opposition to perceived increases in taxation. I've got mine, why should I pay for yours? Lovely.

[Afro Droid]

Originally Posted by Dave

Taking the left-wing falsehoods, half truths, and unattributed speculation the Guardian regularly uses to attack their opponents

I only put the Guardian link up because the BBC is blocked at my work. Most news outlets have been reporting this in a similiar way - including BBC radio.

'spose the BBC are a bunch pinko leftie hippies too though....

Originally Posted by Shaki

They're response is quite hilarious when Hawking's Britishness is pointed out:

To be fair he doesn't sound British

[Le Stu]

Originally Posted by Afro Droid

I only put the Guardian link up because the BBC is blocked at my work. Most news outlets have been reporting this in a similiar way - including BBC radio.

'spose the BBC are a bunch pinko leftie hippies too though....

Yes

But the American right-wing are completely stupid at this point. Like I pointed out earlier, there's much that can be done in way of healthcare reform without adding a couple of trillion to the annual budget deficit. I suspect obamacare will line the pockets of pharmaceutical corporations just like medicare does (which is now 30 times over its original annual budget allocation ) because they can charge up what ever they like to the government tab.

I'm sure Mr Bernanke can just print the difference.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by KennyS

I've got mine, why should I pay for yours?

Go on then, tell me why. Why should I pay x amount for government-regulated healthcare, only to find that, when I need to access it, it's unavailable or of such a poor standard that I have to shell out more cash to be privately looked after? Surely amount x is safer in my pocket than in the government's?

[Le Stu]

I practically wet myself reading this:

AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE ATTACK PLAN TO GIVE THEM HEALTH INSURANCE - The Daily Mash

A Conservative spokesman said: "We're not really sure what Daniel Hannan's problem is with the NHS. Perhaps they were unable to save his hair."

[Tam o' Shantie]

Originally Posted by Dave

Go on then, tell me why. Why should I pay x amount for government-regulated healthcare, only to find that, when I need to access it, it's unavailable or of such a poor standard that I have to shell out more cash to be privately looked after? Surely amount x is safer in my pocket than in the government's?

Dude, do you realise that something like a third of this country's population is living in poverty? The people who are wealthy enough to afford private healthcare can pay for it if they want, but those living on benefits can't. Unfortunately a side effect of having money and raising your expectations of the quality of life you deserve is that you often have to spend your money to recieve it. The difference between our system and theirs is that the most vulnerable people in our society are given the basic right to adequate healthcare (slag it off all you want - it ain't perfect but it's better than nothing). Once you force this to be an OPTION for people living off £200 a week, do you really think that they're going to have a money jar on the mantlepeice in case they get cancer?

Edit:

PS. If I was working in America, I would prefer that my taxes were used to provide basic healthcare to the poor, rather than contributing to this year's $515.4 billion military budget.