 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Maryrrf Date: 14 Aug 09 - 11:32 AM Here's an interesting blog post from an American woman who lived in Britain for 15 years, and moved back a couple of years ago. The "comments" section is especially interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Aug 09 - 10:22 AM First rate little political spat over here arising out of this - Fox News dug out a (British) Conservative Member of the European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, to go on and rabbit on about how dreadful the NHS is. So now the Tory leader, David Cameron has denounced Hannan as a nut ("eccentric" was the word actually used - have to be formally polite about these things in parliamentary circles), and is waxing passionately about how wonderful the NHS is, and how the Tories are its best friends. Meanwhile the Labour Party is seeking to use this as a way of showing up the Tories as enemies of the NHS, suggesting that Daniel Hannan is saying what they really think. The point being that this would be a sure fire way for the Tories to lose votes. There appears to be a strong likelihood Hannan will be disciplined by the Tories for letting the side down so badly, by attacking a "great national institution". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Bobert Date: 14 Aug 09 - 09:12 AM Yer right, Sins... Sorry, I didn't mean to lump the Maine Repubs into the "Gang of Six"... The article I read was talking more about the disporportionate amount of power Senators from small states have in comparasion to highly populated states... My bad... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Greg F. Date: 14 Aug 09 - 09:03 AM You may find it [Reality Check URL] useful to send people who buy into such garbage. What would be the point? The wouldn't recognize the truth if it reared up on its hind legs and bit 'em on the ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: SINSULL Date: 14 Aug 09 - 08:26 AM Bobert, Both senators from Maine are Republicans. Where are you getting the blue dog Democrat numbers? We do have Conservative Democrat Congressmen in the House but none in the Senate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: The Barden of England Date: 14 Aug 09 - 05:03 AM This really shows up all the lies that are being bandied about regarding our National Health Service here in the UK. I'm not too sure it can be read from the USA so I've copied it below. Here's the URL:- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/hawking_british_and_alive/ --------------------------------------------------------- **In perhaps the most amusing effort to discredit US President Barack Obama's plan for nationalized health care - if not the most ridiculous - US financial newspaper Investor's Business Daily has said that if Stephen Hawking were British, he would be dead. "The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof, are legendary," read a recent editorial from the paper. "The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror script... "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." The paper has since been notified that Hawking is both British and still among the living. And it has edited the editorial, acknowledging that the original version incorrectly represented the whereabouts of perhaps the world's most famous scientific mind. But it has not acknowledged that its mention of Hawking misrepresented the NHS as well. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," Hawking told The Guardian. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived." The best you can say about Investor's Business Daily is that unlike US radio talk host Rush Limbaugh, it has not compared Obama's health care logo to a swastika. ®** ---------------------------------------------------------------- It seems to me that The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror script is what I am led to believe is what is happening in the USA for people who have no insurance or are just plain told 'That isn't covered'. All of the contributors from the UK to this thread have with one voice told you that we would never let go of our National Health Service, and woe betide any Government that tried to do so. We live here, and in most cases have had need to use the service, for which I for one am truly grateful. John Barden |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Amos Date: 13 Aug 09 - 10:51 PM This site from the Administration provides a reality check on the bizarre, the false, and the ugly that gets circulated around by vested interests in the insurance, drug, and other involved businesses. You may find it useful to send people who buy into such garbage. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/ A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Maryrrf Date: 13 Aug 09 - 08:50 PM I just watched the video Alice posted. All I can say is "Oh my god". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Aug 09 - 07:35 PM "Always bet on stupidity- you'll never lose money." You would have in November. Sometimes it seems there's an appetite for defeat... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Greg F. Date: 13 Aug 09 - 07:24 PM With semi sentient beings like her on the opposite side, I'm sure the pro National Healthcare people can't lose in the long run. Oh, if only it were true. Always bet on stupidity- you'll never lose money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Aug 09 - 06:01 PM ""That video of the interview is a pretty enlightening picture of a person protesting something she does not even understand."" I'd go so far, Alice, as to say that is a convincing portrait of a person who is not due for her turn using the family brain cell for several days. If there is anything going on in that head, to quote the lady herself, "I'd rather not say there is, or there isn't". What an airhead! With semi sentient beings like her on the opposite side, I'm sure the pro National Healthcare people can't lose in the long run. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: heric Date: 13 Aug 09 - 03:15 PM "Employer costs for health insurance viewed as a percentage of payroll also showed significant variation (Figure 3). In 2005, the median employer cost was 11 percent of payroll, but 25 percent of workers with access to health benefits had employer costs for health insurance that were equal to or less than 6.6 percent of their payroll costs and another 25 percent had employer costs for health insurance that were equal to or exceeded 16.5 percent of their payroll costs. Overall, the percentage of workers in jobs where employer costs for health insurance exceeded 10 percent of payroll rose from 38 percent to 56 percent between 1999 and 2005." http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm030808oth.cfm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Penny S. Date: 13 Aug 09 - 02:40 PM Alice, I can't watch videos on dialup, but it seems likely to be the same dear lady who was on the BBC radio over here. The country with a "manifest destiny" to have a really important place in the world, and not only can it not care for all its people's health, or for its people in disasters like Katrina, but it fails to educate its people to recognise the phoney when they hear it. Our BNP lunatics are not running the asylum yet, though they are working on it. But they don't control the media to build up the irrational understandings of the ordinary people, and then broadcast them as if their opinions are valuable. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Greg F. Date: 13 Aug 09 - 10:28 AM Comment? OK, She's an hysterical, ignorant moron. Probably wears a tin-foil hat to keep the space aliens from reading her mind. Unfortunately, a lot of other ignoranr morons believe the absolute crap the Republican National Committee, the AMA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the drug companies & the insurance companies are flooding the airwaves with & direct-mailing out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Alice Date: 13 Aug 09 - 10:09 AM Interview of the woman at a Town Hall who doesn't want us to be Russia. It looks like people completely ignored my post of this interview. I'd really like some comments after you watch it. (only 5 mins, youtube) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: heric Date: 13 Aug 09 - 10:09 AM No the premise I question is whether this Congress will go nearly as far as they would have you believe in in expanding the availability of high quality health care , or even as they believe themselves. They are not smart, and to the extent they are, their efforts have to go into being smart politicians. You've never believed me before and you won't now that the problem is not so much that the poor are denied access to care because they don't have cash to hand over. It's understandable that you won't because of the way the contrary but anecdotal evidence is presented in waves. The truth, as I believe it to be, is that while the poor don't have access to preventive care, they get their acute care through Medicaid and other government programs (and some through charity, and some through write-offs.) The more troubling problem is the enormous, nonsensical cost-shifting that is used to finance the industry. The working and middle classes, whether they have elected to forego better (or any) insurance, or have simply gotten screwed by an insurer, shift their care costs by not paying and even going bankrupt, which is a horrible injustice right there. It's even more unjust because the fees they are facing are grossly inflated by an industry trying to make up its losses in providing government funded care, write-offs, and even trying to recoup its "losses" on negotiated rates with private insurers. If you fall out of the private insurance system by your fault or no fault or by health insurer malfeasance or deception, the industry will charge after you for everything they can squeeze, on payment rates they could never get from the government or private insurers. It is my opinion that ignoring this fundamental feature of health care financing in the states, and claiming that eliminating "waste and fraud" is the way to fix things, takes us towards false solutions. Couple that with employer provided insurance so that health consumers almost never assess the true price of anything, and we're not going to go very far with $1 trillion. I'm all for mandatory large insurance pools to pay for preventive care for all and to provide catastrophic coverage for all. If the federal proposals being sausaged don't even acknowledge the cost shifting or the problems generated in an employment based system they are avoiding fundamental problems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Greg F. Date: 13 Aug 09 - 09:17 AM "developed country"?? Hell, Cuba has better health care for its citizens than the U.S. does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Aug 09 - 09:11 AM But Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot. First there was that Gates thing, and now he announced AARP endorses his plan, after which AARP themselves came out and announced they did not endorse his plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Aug 09 - 08:53 AM Not with the implied goal I think you were trying to express in what was actually a statement (command), with a questionable premise. The goal I was asking about was clearly enough stated. It was that of bringing about a situation in which "it will no longer be possible to live in the United States and be denied the kind of guaranteed free or at least affordable access to adequate medical treatment which people in all other developed countries in the world have had for many years." The "questionable premiss", I take it would be that every other developed country has achieved that position for its citizens. Well, "developed country" is a category which can be defined in different ways - so here is a map summing up the position. And the question is intended to get some idea as to how far opponents of the reforms under discussion merely believe that there might be better ways of acieving that goal, or whether they actually do not share it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: heric Date: 13 Aug 09 - 01:55 AM Listening to idiots is enlightening? That is an absolutely bizarre way to choose to get information. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: heric Date: 13 Aug 09 - 01:42 AM http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2009/08/11/3998/summary-of-hr-3200-americas-affordable-health-choices-act-of-2009-transcript/ http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Alice Date: 12 Aug 09 - 11:51 PM Katy Abram interviewed on MSNBC tonight, the protester from Town Hall meeting That video of the interview is a pretty enlightening picture of a person protesting something she does not even understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Michael Harrison Date: 12 Aug 09 - 11:27 PM You left out one word in your heading - Great! Cheers,.......mwh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: heric Date: 12 Aug 09 - 09:59 PM Well now Helen Thomas just said I have it about right. She says Obama still has time. Maybe, but I have a feeling the Democratically controlled Congress screwed this up for him so badly we'll go on and on as ever - with Rube Goldberg fixes on a flawed employer-based model. There is absolutely no excuse for failing to have a working agenda on this. (I only disagree with her in that I think there are good options beside single payer, but it's pretty much moot.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Greg F. Date: 12 Aug 09 - 09:12 PM Does anyone disagree with that goal? That's Anne Coulter (B)and Doug, Bruce. And there's lots more- unfortunately, and to the U.S's eternal shame- where those two came from. It's Mencken's "Boobocracy" in action, with a vengeance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: heric Date: 12 Aug 09 - 08:13 PM The problem I have (coming late to the game admittedly) is that the proponents have phrased this question: "Do we want to be good like the Europeans or do we want to remain bad like we are?" The looney right falls right into the trap with: "Do we want the government to ration care and engage in euthanasia?" My questions are: (1) "Does Congress even know what it wants to do?" and (2) "If we do it, will it make us good?" If Congress wants to give us something comparable to the UK system, is that what they have done? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: heric Date: 12 Aug 09 - 07:58 PM Not with the implied goal I think you were trying to express in what was actually a statement (command), with a questionable premise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Peace Date: 12 Aug 09 - 07:25 PM Ann Coulter does. No sane person does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Aug 09 - 07:25 PM Talking about Iraq is a bit of a drastic thread wrench, but here goes for one post: Iraq under Saddam was pretty unpleasant in a lot of ways. But I suspect there are an awaful lot of Iraqis who would exchange it in a minute for what they have now, including the estimated 2 million who have had to leave the country as refugees, including most of the ancient Christian minority, and the estimated 1.7 million living in internal exile. Then there are the people who have died as a result of the invasion and its aftermath. And of course the freedom of women to do stuff like dispense with wearing veils, or get educated or live independent lives, has been greatly reduced, and is in constant danger of being further reduced. .................. In order for anyone opposed to the proposed health reforms to have any moral credibility they have to be able to point to an alternative which meets the basic requirment of ensuring that it will no longer be possible to live in the United States and be denied the kind of guaranteed free or at least affordable access to adequate medical treatment which people in all other developed countries in the world have had for many years. Does anyone disagree with that goal? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: heric Date: 12 Aug 09 - 06:13 PM As far as I can tell, physician reimbursement rates (Medicare) are supposed stay as is. (Don't know about inflation, etc., and don't know about total earnings to take home.) Facilities I think will get lower relative rates. We're not getting any kind of health service that I can see. More employees just have to be provided health insurance. More of the currently uninsured will get care from . . I don't know - providers and facilities that take Medicare/Medicaid, I guess? I am certainly missing many of the very basic principles. Can someone send me to a cogent primer on the subject? (Like Congress, I'm not going to read the long version of what's hapenning.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Richard Bridge Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:40 PM England did it just after the Second World War. The purpose of an insurance company is to make money, not to save (or improve the quality of) life. The purpose of a health service is to save (or improve the quality of) life. Simples! Surely US physicians are rich enough already, aren't they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: heric Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:03 PM I've been hearing about "cutting out waste and fraud" all my life. So if they can do it but they don't do it but they will do it, well . . . Why didn't they do it? This is at least as deliberately deceptive as "evil insurance companies." There is no conversation occurring here; not that I have found in the little time I've had available, about how our honorable Congresspeople and Senators intend to do a truly competent job re-organizing a MASSIVE portion of the US economy, with clear and logical methods. Just "change" is all I have seen so far. I'll be very glad to be wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: heric Date: 12 Aug 09 - 04:55 PM It is a lot easier for Democrats to scaremonger with "evil insurance companies" themes than to make people really understand what the problems are, how they will be addressed, and what will be lost in the bargain. If the starting point is EXPANDING employment based coverage rather than reducing or replacing it entirely I don't see how any good can come out of this. $1 trillion to be offset by reduced spending and new taxes? WTF? Medicare to be ENHANCED (or held steady) and physician reimbursement to be ENHANCED (or held steady) while other provider reimbursements to be REDUCED all by "cutting out waste and fraud." Could someone explain how all this is supposed to work without using "right wing" or "left wing" or "single payor" or "Democrat" or "Republican" in the response? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Ebbie Date: 12 Aug 09 - 03:53 PM Last night's news carried Arlen Specter, newly Democratic Senator, keeping his cool as a number of people got into his face. So, it appears, Bobert, that you're right- the (agreed upon?) strategy is to stay cool and informative and conciliatory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Don Firth Date: 12 Aug 09 - 03:45 PM Well, now, Doug, if I were an Iraqi and I couldn't walk through the streets of Baghdad to the local grocery store to buy a loaf of bread without the very real fear of getting caught in the crossfire between a couple of warring factions (e.g., Sunni's vs. Shi-ites) or being blown up by a car bomb, I might prefer to live under the relative tranquility of Saddam's regime despite its disadvantages than to have to endure the can of worms the U. S. "liberation" opened up. Not to mention the on-going mess in Afghanistan. Bush's legacy. That could have been handled much more rationally. Something needed to be done, but Larry, Curly, and Moe could have handled the whole thing a lot better than the Bush League has. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Penny S. Date: 12 Aug 09 - 02:50 PM BBC PM programme blog on the subject I'm still reading the interesting blogs it links to. I do hope some of them are intended to be humorous. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: DougR Date: 12 Aug 09 - 02:01 PM Riginslinger: I wonder if the folks in Iraq would agree that the US (and it's allies) did such a lousy job in Iraq? Think they preferred life under Saddam to what they have now? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Aug 09 - 01:28 PM Probably the reason folks thing government can't do anything right is because it did such a bad job in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Don Firth Date: 12 Aug 09 - 12:44 PM This past Sunday, the writers' group I'm in met at our apartment. After we read our stuff and mutually critiqued it, the conversation became general, and the subject of single payer national health service came up. I made a comment or two about how much "socialism" already exists in this country and it seems to work just fine. In fact, nobody seems to identify it as "socialism" if they, themselves, find it, not just convenient, but absolutely essential. Like road and freeway infrastructure, police and fire service, etc. This morning, I received the following in an e-mail from Paul, one of the writers. I did some checking and found it all over the internet, so I guess it's fair game to post it here as well. Enjoy. And for those who hadn't really thought about all of this, DO learn. I AM AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE (impolite epithet)Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Bobert Date: 12 Aug 09 - 08:17 AM Well, looks as if the Dems had a better day with the town hall meetings... The strategy is to just hang in there and not allow themselves to be intimidated... Plus, what we are seeing on TV does not represent to polling... Couple more days and we may see the righties on the run... I donno??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Gervase Date: 12 Aug 09 - 08:08 AM The right-wing scaremongering has been picked up in the Guardian over here in the UK. It does look pretty alarmist - amazing how vitriolic people can get when ideologies are challenged. The piece is here. The concluding paragraphs are worth quoting here, though: the UK spends less per head on healthcare but has a higher life expectancy than the US. The World Health Organisation ranks Britain's healthcare as 18th in the world, while the US is in 37th place. The British Medical Association said a majority of Britain's doctors have consistently supported public provision of healthcare. A spokeswoman said the association's 140,000 members were sceptical about the US approach to medicine: "Doctors and the public here are appalled that there are so many people on the US who don't have proper access to healthcare. It's something we would find very, very shocking." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Penny S. Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:26 AM The item is on this page, at 7.12 - I couldn't get into it myself. Today Obama item Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Penny S. Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:11 AM This was reported on the BBC this morning on the Today programme. a woman was very strongly explaining that she did not want her country turning into Russia, or a socialised country. I suspect a lot of people over there don't know about their fellows who fall through the net. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Alice Date: 11 Aug 09 - 10:31 PM On CSPAN I'm watching the President answering questions at the Portsmouth, New Hampshire town hall today regarding health insurance reform. Here is a link to the web site where you can see it: http://www.c-span.org/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Peace Date: 11 Aug 09 - 08:05 PM Easily fixed. Small states tend to have less-educated people who are more vulnerable to emotionalism at the expense of the truth. No offence implied, intended or even thought about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Aug 09 - 07:59 PM Oh good! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Aug 09 - 07:25 PM ""Hey, Don, fine post above. Does this mean you will no longer be voting conservative?"" NO! Why would it? Here, I'm talking about a matter of monetary class distinction. Quite separate from my views about how a country should be run. I would happily discuss those views with you in another place and time. Unfortunately, when discussing politics with you, I have discovered that once the word conservative is said, the only voice that can be heard for five miles in any direction is YOURS. LOL Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Rowan Date: 11 Aug 09 - 06:52 PM Doug, the outbursts that you cite are organized by insurance companies and ancillary political supporters. They are not really grass roots by any means. This is a Republican tactic Supporting Stringsinger's contention that the protesters are not representatives of "grass roots" opinion, I heard a US commentator, interviewed on Oz Radio National this morning, describe those protesters emphatically as "Astroturf". Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 09 - 06:38 PM Less educated per capita... And those that do go to colleges from these states tend to seek out conservative colleges... Point is that 3% of the population is holding as much Senatorial control as 50%... That is why the Gang of Six will blow up this decades shot at health reform... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Aug 09 - 09:26 AM I read it as meaning that people were less educated, rather than that there weren't so many who were educated at all. |
