BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:58 AM

One thing that should be done, by the way, to improve our Canadian system is this: it should include dental care!

At present it does not, except for emergency surgery in a hospital after, say, an auto accident.

Normal dental care is not covered at all, and it's a major yearly expense for most people, because dentists charge a hefty fee. My yearly dental costs, on average, probably exceed all the taxes I pay for all the other medical stuff I'm covered for by our national health plan....and that's just for getting my teeth checked and cleaned, the odd cavity or filling repair, nothing major.

There is simply no way that dental care should not be included in our national health plan, and I think it's disgraceful that it's not, so there is need for change here too. Another thing that should be fully covered, in my opinion, is chiropractic treatment.

Would including those add some more to my yearly taxes? Yes. But it would not add as much as I already pay myself out of my own pocket to the dentist and the chiropractor...because again, the cost would be spread around throughout the entire public. Would the level of service change? No. The same dentists would still be available in the same locations, I'd still go to the one I like the best, and nothing would change regarding my service, I'd just be paying less for it, that's all....and I wouldn't get financially blindsided if something requiring me to undergo major dental work came along.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 09:52 AM

Now, I know you're an intelligent man, Doug...

On the basis of what evidence have you formed this opinion?

Please elaborate.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:54 PM

Now, don't be nasty.... ;-)

Look, Greg, I've lived in the USA, okay? I was there for 10 years. I am well aware of how deeply certain cultural assumptions, such as "socialism is a terrible evil, and leads to Communism" and "we live in the best and freest society on Earth here" and "we are better off than other people are"...I'm well aware of how deeply they are woven into the thoughts of a majority of Americans, quite regardless of their basic level of intelligence, which after all is about the same as people's basic level of intelligence anywhere else...

It's cultural programming, and it starts at kindergarten age. That has a profound effect on people that usually lasts the rest of their lives.

Go back a few generations in the UK, and consider the cultural programming that was put into every English schoolboy regarding the natural right of the British Empire to expand all over the world, run and exploit other places, carry "the White Man's Burden", and lord it over the darker-skinned races in a kindly and benevolent (ha! ha!) manner..."for their own good"!

Ah, yes, it was a tacit assumption of most Englishmen, wasn't it? They didn't dream of questioning it. This didn't mean they were stupid, necessarily, it meant that they'd been very well programmed by a ceaseless flow of imperial dogma from the time they were old enough to walk.

Well, something quite similar happens to Americans from the time they are old enough to walk. It's a similar set of imperial and militaristic assumptions, the kind of assumptions that can only arise in a militarily dominant empire during its time of greatest historical power.

Doug's opinions do not indicate that he's stupid. They indicate that he's a fairly typical product of the society and area he was born in and the family and peer group he grew up in, and the political influences that were woven into all that.

If you studied the opinions of most Germans during Germany's imperial phase....from about the time of Bismark through the end of WWI...and a brief resurgence under the Nazis later...you'd find that they had a whole bunch of grand imperial mythology they mostly believed in too...whether or NOT they were bright, capable people of high intelligence. The Japanese also fell into that trap, and so have many other populations when their country went into an imperial phase.

It's a characteristic of the citizenry of great imperial powers during their time of expansion. They must believe in various grandiose, self-justifying, self-glorifying mythology in order to continue believing in the moral rightness of what they are doing, both to themselves and to others. Imperial powers, morally speaking, are robbers who take other people's land and resources by force...or by the threat of force. Their population cannot be allowed to see it that way or they'd lose faith in the system. They must believe that their government and social system stands for good and is the best one around. When they stop believing that, then the empire is about ready to fall. Some of them will go on believing it even after the empire has fallen...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:20 PM

LH:

1: answer the question & provide evidence.

2: If you're saying that Doug's mindset, ignorance & lack of critical thought is similar to that which allowed the Nazis to take over in Germany, far be it from me to contradict you.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:42 PM

My point, Doug, was that since several people, including Lox had spelt out that under the NHS we all pay for each other, why did you ask a question which seemed to imply that Lox didn't understand that, or was trying to conceal it?

There are umpteen ways of organising a decent health service that makes sure that everyone gets the health care they need. The NHS is only one of those, the one that has been around longer than most of the others.

No reason why the USA shouldn't do it a different way - but plenty of reasons why it has a duty to organise itself so that all its people are able to get decent health care.

And those who would stop the USA at long last moving towards universal health care for all its people should perhaps be ashamed of themselves, and embarrassed at the shame they bring on their country.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:28 PM

Forget it, Kevin- these people HAVE no shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:05 PM

I think they do, but one of the ways people deal with that kind of thing is to go into denial, and find a scapegoat. I'm sure that's where a lot of the hatred against Obama has its source.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:17 PM

Little Hawk - So very well put. I can only but agree with you.

John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:35 PM

"If you're saying that Doug's mindset, ignorance & lack of critical thought is similar to that which allowed the Nazis to take over in Germany..."

Matter of fact, Greg, that is what I'm saying. I'm not directing it personally at Doug, because I don't see any use in that sort of personal attack on people I know, but I am saying it about the USA as a society in a general sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:03 PM

Doug's opinions ... indicate that he's a fairly typical product of the society and area he was born in and the family and peer group he grew up in, and the political influences that were woven into all that.

I don't dispute this for a minute, but that doesn't mean that these opinions are a crock of shit based on misinformation, lies, mythology & wishful thinking.

And his opinions -Thank God! are NOT held by "a majority of Americans", despite what he - and you -might believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:06 PM

Pardon the typo- that should read:

... but that doesn't mean that these opinions AREN'T a crock of shit...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:37 PM

Yeah, I got that... ;-)

I think you're right that a majority of Americans don't hold Doug's opinions. The last election indicated that very strongly. The problem is that Doug's opinions are held by a majority of rural white Americans in certain regions of the country such as the Deep South and the more sparsely populated states in the Midwest and much of the West (east of the Rocky Mountains). His opinions are also more prevalent among older white people than among younger white people.

That's the traditional base of the Republican party...rural white people, and specially the older generation. They're people who are much more likely to go out and vote than younger people are, and they are people more driven by anger and frustration than younger people (whose attention is more occupied by dating, having a lively social life, getting married, looking for a new job, etc...than bitching about political issues)

The core of the conservative base both in the USA and in Canada (and, I suspect in almost all countries) is the older people from the cultural mainstream, people who are set in their ways, afraid of change, and locked into a cultural holding pattern that's a few decades out of date.

It's the forces of reaction, not innovation.

I am living in a part of Ontario that's exactly that kind of demographic, since the majority of the population right around here is older white people who used to live in Toronto when they were young liberals and who moved out to escape the rapid cultural changes and increased urbanization there. They have metamorphised into crabby old conservatives who are busyily defending themselves against change. ;-)

Whereas Toronto tends to vote for more "liberal" parties and candidates, the people in this more rural region where I live will virtually always elect a conservative to office...even if the Conservative Party runs a dog or a chimp! (I jest....but it's kind of like that)

They are afraid of change, and they are easily bamboozled by the very conservative political forces funded by big business, the very forces who are robbing them all the time in 1,000 insidious little ways.

One interesting thing, though. All those conservative people hereabouts are very much in favor of maintaining our single payer socialized health coverage. Why? Well, they've had about 50 years to try it out by now, and they like it! They don't have to fear going bankrupt if they get sick......and they're not stupid. Reactionary maybe, but not stupid. They're learned by direct experience what a damn good idea it is to have that kind of health coverage.

The jerk who's in power now (Stephen Harper, Conservative, minority government) would love to dismantle our health system and make us just like the USA, but he's not going to. He'd be committing political suicide if he tried it, and he knows that. He's not stupid either. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:55 PM

Still waiting to get an appointment with an ENT since July 13. Wretching terribly many mornings for up to five minutes and spitting blood (once) does not seem to matter.

Canuck medicare is not perfect. You get sick and see what happens.

Kendall asked me about sommat he read in this forum... it was to the effect... fine, free healthcare sounds great, if you have access to it. Apparently, I do not. My GP just shrugs his shoulders and says, sometimes it takes more than a year to get an appointment.

Oh, BTW... over 6 months so far to see the eye doc.

Sorry, but I am beginning to wonder about our wonderful Canuck Medicare.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:59 PM

gnu, I was given to understand by one of your fellow New Brunswickers, that the situation in that province is much worse than for the other provinces because of something that was done by your premier that discouraged doctors from wanting to practice there (or something like that). I don't think the situation in your province is necessarily an indictment of the system overall, but of the particular circumstance found in your province. My family members in other provinces are not encountering the problems you are having there.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 08:44 PM

Well... if it's a political thing, that doesn't help me at the momemnt. What matters is my Medicare is not helping me. And I am not the only one. There are a lot of us "waiting". Peeps in other countries don't get to read our newspapers about the long waiting periods to get access to health care.

I am not gonna get into why... greedy politicians trying to line their pockets along with the insurance and health care companies if they can bring in a two tier system? I dunno.

I just dunno. It seems that my government just continues to do all the wrong things and has no respect for it's citizens. It's as if they are controlled by big business.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 10:18 PM

Well, I hope you get looked at soon. I don't know if this would make you feel any better or not, but if I had your problem, if we hadn't passed our health care reform law, I would have to wait until around 2021 to get any help.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:52 PM

If there's a shortage of doctors, then waiting times go up. I gather that there is an extreme shortage of doctors in New Brunswick at the moment, gnu. There is somewhat of a shortage of family doctors in central Ontario...but I haven't heard much complaint about delays in getting treatment at local hospitals or walk-in clinics.

Clearly the system as it exists now is not perfect. I bet it would be darned hard to find one anywhere that is.

I usually go to an excellent Naturopath for most stuff I need...which is completely outside of the regular health care system. I've had the best experience with him, and have little reason to go anywhere else so far.....except the dentist, and periodic checkups on my eyesight at the optometrist. For the most part, I figure my health is entirely up to me, which means I have to eat right, drink enough water, avoid toxic food and toxic drugs (like caffeine, nicotine, aspartame, etc), get enough exercise and fresh air and sunshine, get enough sleep, and not get overly stressed out.

All that will strengthen my immune system which is my main guarantee of continued good health.

In so doing (and I've had excellent advice from the naturopath on how to keep myself healthy and what minerals and vitamins I need, etc...) I have cost the mainstream national medical insurance system just about nothing in my whole adult life so far. That doesn't mean something can't happen...but it's worked very well thus far.

That also means I've been subsidizing other people's health care through my yearly taxes....and that's just fine with me. I am glad to do so, because I live in a community and I'm part of it. Other people pay for lots of stuff I use too, after all, so what goes around comes around.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:10 AM

By the way, gnu, I think that your suspicion that the government is controlled by large business interests is right on the mark. That is the case in both Canada and the USA. Big business owns the political parties and the government. Perhaps what they have in mind is to put our existing health system under ever greater stress in order to bring in a two-tier system...one which will profit them, but not the public, needless to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:34 AM

Maybe they're trying to get rid of it by making it so bad, people will demand that it be gotten rid of.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:22 PM

Yes, that could well be the plan. I can't think of any way that would work better to accomplish that end.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:32 PM

I picked the ENT with the shortest referral time. Referral was on July 13 and I just called and asked when an appointment could/would be made... my appointment is June 1.

The only way to get quicker attention is by bleeding. If I win the looto (yes, it was), I am getting a referral from Kendall. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:46 PM

...it is estimated that a record $120 million was spent lobbying for health reform. In addition to direct lobbying, some of the top firms also rewarded members of Congress with campaign contributions through political action committees and individual lobbyist donations....

OTHER LOBBYIST / CONTIBUTORS:
Amgen—the nation's largest biotechnology firm
BIO—a muli million dollar biotechnology firm
Merck—the largest pharmaceutical company in the world
Blue Cross—a federation of 39 health insurance organizations
Humana—the fourth largest health insurance company in the United States
UnitedHealth Group—the nations largest health insurance company
Cigna—the nation's fifth largest health insurance company

The largest health insurance providers in the nation are UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana and Cigna.   Ever since the healthcare debate began over a year ago, shares of Cigna, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint have been up an average of 120%.   Upon passage of the bill, health insurer's stocks soared with Aetna hitting a 52 week high. The share price of Cigna surged 375% compared to 46% for the stock market overall...

http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/the-k-street-hustlin-of-obamacare/

WHY they did it

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:40 PM

"I think the NHS is a wonderful, wonderful thing. What it did for my
family and for my son, I will never forget. I went from hospital to
hospital, A&Es in the middle of the night, sleeping in different wards
in different places. The dedication, and the vocation and the love
you get from people who work in the NHS just, I think, makes me
incredibly proud of this country, so thank you for all that you've
done.

"I think it is special, the NHS, and we made a special
exception of the NHS and said yes, there are going to have to be
difficult financial decisions elsewhere, but we think that the NHS
budget should grow in real terms, i.e., more than inflation, every
year under a Conservative government. My vision is that we
improve it, we expand it, we develop it, we make sure that it's got
more choice and more control for the patient."

Quote comes from the leader of the British Conservative Party, speaking in the course of the first TV debate with his rivals to be elected to become Prime Minister. That's the kind of thing that makes it so hard for non-Americans to begin to understand where the fanatical hatred for advocates of health reform in the USA comes from.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: IanC
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 04:10 AM

I thought I'd revive this old thread rather than start a new one.

The latest figures, published today, on life expectancy show that people in the UK now live to an average 80 years. Two years more than in the US.

Life expectancy is the ultimate measure of general health (unless you're at war) so this is significant. The cost of health care in the US is almost twice what it is in the UK.

I think that gives an idea of what a nationalised health care system can do for you.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 05:12 AM

Good find IanC... but what is the quality of that long life in the UK? If it is longer time in poorly run residential and palliative care, is that really a win?

Sorry... I am depressed because I want to go home to US but can't afford to because of the health care situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 05:47 AM

I saw the ENT referred to in my last post. Revisited her in September. She said she would try to get me in for an op by November or refer me to another doc as she was going on 6 months maternity leave. I am still waiting for a call from whatever doc I was referred to.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 06:20 AM

I thought I'd revive this old thread rather than start a new one.

I think a new thread with a link to this one in the opening post would make a lot more sense. Makes for fewer problems in loading the thread.