Universal Health Care versus Privatized Health Care

Let 'er rip.

Both good to me. If one can't serve my needs I can easily go to the other.

From your paper..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537385/Patients-wait-year-for-hip-surgery.html

One bad instance Tex. We're much higher in the world health rankings than the US... by about 20 places iirc.

Besides, what makes you think that we don't have private healthcare here?

Big fan of the NHS (and not just because I work for them!) Not sure how well the two systems work in conjunction though, actually. I suppose I would like to have the option of private if I could afford it - but it will never be entirely separate. They still draw on the same basic pool of staff. I'm not sure that an ideological level I approve of it - which is the same with private schooling. Everyone should have the same basic good standard - and private should be for comfort and frills, if people can afford it.

But with regards to the situation in America, the media picking on the British system of health care and attempting to insult the NHS has really pissed me off. The misrepresentation of our system, and attempting to slag it off as part of a deceitful propaganda campaign is disgusting. If you don't want health care then argue against it on its own terms - don't tell lies and attack another country's system.

Yes, "Orwellian Death Panels" springs to mind. But that came from Sarah Palin, I expect no less from her.

TexasBlue wrote:From your paper..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537385/Patients-wait-year-for-hip-surgery.html

Well, if you search online hard enough of course you are going to find various NHS scare stories, but then again exactly what healthcare service provider (public or private) in the world could exactly claim to be 100% perfect?

I don't doubt there are probably private schemes in the US that could boast a better service - but there also many, many that provide a far inferior service and almost certainly none could say they provide a similar number of services (from psychiatric to dental as well as surgery and subsiding proscription medicine and training medical staff) and to all, and not just those who can afford to stay fit. You won't find anything similar anywhere else in the world.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:One bad instance Tex. We're much higher in the world health rankings than the US... by about 20 places iirc.

Besides, what makes you think that we don't have private healthcare here?

I'm not saying you guys have shitty HC. I just had to throw that article in.

No, i never thought or implied you guys don't have private insurance or clinics.

I'm being the devils advocate. It's like people who have never been here complaining about our system. That's no different than if i was to sit and rail on about yours over there without having lived it.

My biggest gripe over here is the power of the insurance companies. Much of that is due to gov't regulations. Much of it. have a friend who's an X-Ray technician. She said that one way for health care cost to go down, and dramatically, is to eliminate insurance companies.

Of course, our system is not perfect and I wouldn't dare imply that it was. But it irks me that people like Sarah Palin seize on a single article from one of our newspapers as for why all socialised healthcare everywhere is not only of poor quality and unnecessarily overly-expensive, but also sinister and evil... simply because it is contrary to your law.

That is not only stupid and bigoted, but incredibly provincial and narrowminded. We don't have your constitution, perhaps the critics of our syste, need to understand that?

merkwurdigliebe wrote:Well, if you search online hard enough of course you are going to find various NHS scare stories, but then again exactly what healthcare service provider (public or private) in the world could exactly claim to be 100% perfect?

Exactly. People can find horror stories here in the USA and much of it can be debunked. It's like the stat where someone said over 40,000 people died here last year because they didn't have health care. That was quickly debunked by bloggers here. One never heard that figure again.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:I don't doubt there are probably private schemes in the US that could boast a better service - but there also many, many that provide a far inferior service and almost certainly none could say they provide a similar number of services (from psychiatric to dental as well as surgery and subsiding proscription medicine and training medical staff) and to all, and not just those who can afford to stay fit. You won't find anything similar anywhere else in the world.

If i was to go out on my own and buy insurance, i get to choose what coverage i want. When i go to work for an employer, i have to take the coverage that they bought. Any extra stuff, and i have to pay extra for it or not have it at all.

I'll tell you what... Dbl read this entire bill (which our 'gods' didn't even bother to do) and knows more about what our politicians did to screw us over than not. I'm not passing off the debate to him by any means. It's just going to be interesting to read (again) what he has to say about it. It was fun back over at the old place.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Yes, "Orwellian Death Panels" springs to mind. But that came from Sarah Palin, I expect no less from her.

Cato tore that one apart. Interesting read from them guys. And they're not Republican. They're... ahem.. Libertarian.

What Palin wrote about death panels clearly had nothing to do with counseling or with any other specifics in seminal House bill. What she wrote was: “Government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course.”

How could anyone believe Palin’s sensible comment about rationing was, in reality, a senseless fear of counseling? To say so was no mistake; it was an oft-repeated big lie.

The whole piece; http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/death-panels-sarah-palin-was-right/

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Of course, our system is not perfect and I wouldn't dare imply that it was. But it irks me that people like Sarah Palin seize on a single article from one of our newspapers as for why all socialised healthcare everywhere is not only of poor quality and unnecessarily overly-expensive, but also sinister and evil... simply because it is contrary to your law.

That is not only stupid and bigoted, but incredibly provincial and narrowminded. We don't have your constitution, perhaps the critics of our syste, need to understand that?

Yeah, deeper investigation into is warranted. But to your Palin rant, see post above.

TexasBlue wrote:
I'm being the devils advocate. It's like people who have never been here complaining about our system. That's no different than if i was to sit and rail on about yours over there without having lived it.

But that is exactly what your media HAS done...and it makes me really cross!

Media here is sad for the most part. But then, i see that even with foreign media.

Matthew, if you're talking about this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205953/NHS-branded-evil-Orwellian-high-level-US-politicians.html

Even according to that rag (dear god I just linked to the Daily Mail) it wasn't Palin who called it Orwellian or evil, but other right wing politicians - including err ... Senator Chuck Grassley?

Seriously - can you find an instance of a British politician slagging off the American system like that? Not cricket.

Then I take it back about Sarah "Fruitfly" Palin, even if she does diserve our disdain for a whole lot of other things.

Amongst other things, it is unusual to see The Daily Mail defending the NHS so vigorously.

Regardless, this "Orwellian" system of healthcare is still 20 places above the US in the WHO charts.

TexasBlue wrote:

merkwurdigliebe wrote:Well, if you search online hard enough of course you are going to find various NHS scare stories, but then again exactly what healthcare service provider (public or private) in the world could exactly claim to be 100% perfect?

Exactly. People can find horror stories here in the USA and much of it can be debunked. It's like the stat where someone said over 40,000 people died here last year because they didn't have health care. That was quickly debunked by bloggers here. One never heard that figure again.

Yet right wingers trawl the internet to find one instance in our country where one person has possibly been refused a certain treatment. The newspaper claims it is because there is no money, but nobody thinks to ask the Health Authority why this person was refused (in my experience it is because the media has championed it as a "miracle drug" when it is nothing of the sort and yes, it is too expensive for such little - or zero - chance of working for that particular condition). And they use this single misrepresented article to show why our system is an absolute failure (apparently).

It's not just the media - I'm really quite angry that American politicians would have the nerve to slag off our health system as part of a propaganda campaign. The media is one thing - you expect this type of behaviour from them. But the politicians?! How dare they!!!

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Then I take it back about Sarah "Fruitfly" Palin, even if she does diserve our disdain for a whole lot of other things.

Amongst other things, it is unusual to see The Daily Mail defending the NHS so vigorously.

Regardless, this "Orwellian" system of healthcare is still 20 places above the US in the WHO charts.

One day in the future, you'll be a Palin fan while i still question her (which I do).

Another one i debunked was 'I can see Russia' bit which was taken out of context and never challenged by the media.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Yet right wingers trawl the internet to find one instance in our country where one person has possibly been refused a certain treatment. The newspaper claims it is because there is no money, but nobody thinks to ask the Health Authority why this person was refused (in my experience it is because the media has championed it as a "miracle drug" when it is nothing of the sort and yes, it is too expensive for such little - or zero - chance of working for that particular condition). And they use this single misrepresented article to show why our system is an absolute failure (apparently).

Isn't that what media does though?

BecMacFeegle wrote:It's not just the media - I'm really quite angry that American politicians would have the nerve to slag off our health system as part of a propaganda campaign. The media is one thing - you expect this type of behaviour from them. But the politicians?! How dare they!!!

That's politicians here. That's why people are beginning to hate them.

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Then I take it back about Sarah "Fruitfly" Palin, even if she does diserve our disdain for a whole lot of other things.

Amongst other things, it is unusual to see The Daily Mail defending the NHS so vigorously.

Regardless, this "Orwellian" system of healthcare is still 20 places above the US in the WHO charts.

One day in the future, you'll be a Palin fan while i still question her (which I do).

Never. The woman is an insufferable moron and worse - proud of it. And the one thing I cannot abide is prideful ignorance being passed off as a virtue *COUGH* 1oldminer *COUGH*. How could I support a woman who thinks that the planet is 6000 years old, that evolution is all a lie, a rapture cultist and a woman who didn't even know what the term "bail out" meant. McCain's choice of her as a potential VP would have been enough to put me off voting for him, but her stupid comment about fruitflies was the point of no return.

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Yet right wingers trawl the internet to find one instance in our country where one person has possibly been refused a certain treatment. The newspaper claims it is because there is no money, but nobody thinks to ask the Health Authority why this person was refused (in my experience it is because the media has championed it as a "miracle drug" when it is nothing of the sort and yes, it is too expensive for such little - or zero - chance of working for that particular condition). And they use this single misrepresented article to show why our system is an absolute failure (apparently).

Isn't that what media does though?

Is it really so wrong to expect any sort of journalistic integrity? Since when did news reporting stop being about reporting events and more about how we can skew it to appeal to the prejudices of the readership?

I know I still 'owe' some people in here responses but I'm insanely busy with schoolwork and barely have time to even look in here. I just have a quick comment about this.

Universal HC is NOT there to be on par with private HC, it is there to offer an alternative to those who can't afford private HC.
In Germany, you have the choice to be insured privately (which you and your employer pays for) or to be 'government insured' (which the gov't pays for).
Obviously private insurance is much better than Gov't insurance, which is why private insurance companies can indeed compete with gov't insurance, because they can offer higher quality HC.
Once again, Universal HC is NOT there to replace private HC, only to provide a certain insurance basis for certain needs to those who can't afford private insurance.

Universal HC is NOT there to be on par with private HC, it is there to offer an alternative to those who can't afford private HC.

That might be the case in Germany, but it certainly isn't in the UK. The NHS is the standard - it is what everybody uses, even those who have private health care have to pay for it and they have to use it too. It uses the same staff and often the same facilities. There are some treatments you simply can't get privately - and your first point of call, for private or solely NHS patients, is your NHS GP.