| TOP STORY ON BBC NEWS. NHS IS AWESOME LEAVE US ALONE. |
US calls NHS "evil" • Page 11
-
-
_Price_ 3,072 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 15 years agoBabyJesus wrote:
Well arguably we have no major left party in the UK since New Labour has leaned more to the centre.
That's the .5
/votes Lib. Dem.
/fights the power -
AphoticCosmos wrote:
This one's also decent:
The_Escapist wrote:
That is an absolutely quality post. Major kudos to the original poster, wherever he/she is.
Great post from the internet wilds:
Joe Conservative
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee.
The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total
contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a conributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.
Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. It is noon time and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads. He arrives at his boyhood home.
His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.
Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like. I have -
BabyJesus 4,412 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 12 years ago_Price_ wrote:
BabyJesus wrote:
Well arguably we have no major left party in the UK since New Labour has leaned more to the centre.
That's the .5
/votes Lib. Dem.
/fights the power
I wish you still had Paddy Ashdown or Charles Kennedy as leader.
Nick Clegg is too lightweight. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agorichardtock wrote:
How is it legal for politicians to take money from special interest groups and lobbies?
Is that legal over here?
o_0
Do you think the campaign contribution fairy puts the money under the pillow before elections?
Have you paid any attention to British politics er, like, ever?
The_Escapist wrote:
Great post from the internet wilds:
This morning I awoke to the sound of my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the Public Power Monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility.*snip(
If only but a small portion of that was true
For example, where I live, power is delivered by one company for electricity and one for gas and one for water, (all privately owned companies, all parts of giant national conglomerations). The latter of which tastes like shite.
The FCC allows extreme violence but not tits or ass and you cannot say words like dick even on most cable channels.
The FDA is a total and utter joke, as evidenced by the myriad of fatal health scares over food this year. Don't even get started on pharmaceutical drug 'regulation', such as the recent scandal over an anti-allergy drug whose properties of making people go deaf were kept quiet for a long time. If the USDA is anything like the FDA they inspect around 2-4% of food producers.
The quality of many roads are a total joke. Over 40,000 people die a year on the roads. The Post Office is 5 or 6 billion bucks in the red. The EPA, admittedly under Bush, shredded air and water quality laws. They are widely recognised as being one of the most broken governmental departments.
Don't get me started on the local cops. City of less than 200k, they've shot to death nine people so far this year. I suppose it cuts down on firing range expenses.
By all means, attack these idiots on the far right, but you don't win the high ground by spouting bullshit of your own. It may be a different colour, it may smell different, but it's still fucking bullshit. -
_Price_ 3,072 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 15 years agoBabyJesus wrote:
I wish you still had Paddy Ashdown or Charles Kennedy as leader.
Nick Clegg is too lightweight.
Me too. Clever bloke, just not 'loud' enough to get the right (i.e. left) policies on the table. Really should have cleaned up in the council / European elections after the expenses debacle, but just didn't throw enough shit to get noticed. A bit sad really, that's just the way us leftys roll. -
BabyJesus 4,412 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 12 years ago_Price_ wrote:
BabyJesus wrote:
I wish you still had Paddy Ashdown or Charles Kennedy as leader.
Nick Clegg is too lightweight.
Me too. Clever bloke, just not 'loud' enough to get the right (i.e. left) policies on the table. Really should have cleaned up in the council / European elections after the expenses debacle, but just didn't throw enough shit to get noticed. A bit sad really, that's just the way us leftys roll.
I really don't understand why Vince Cable didn't stand for leader after being the acting leader. He is one of the most articulate people in parliament imo. -
Trowel 24,512 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 18 years agoAndy Burnham's Twitter: Over the moon about strong support for NHS - an institution I will defend to my dying day, 2nd only to Everton FC.
.gif)
-
Khanivor wrote:
I think most people would accept that government programs are very often flawed. It's difficult to provide world class, well funded systems for millions of people, across multiple areas of modern society.
By all means, attack these idiots on the far right, but you don't win the high ground by spouting bullshit of your own. It may be a different colour, it may smell different, but it's still fucking bullshit.
But the largesse of government means they are at least able to provide a certain level of service, without the profit motive, because you can't leave everything to the private sector, otherwise the cost of living would be a nightmare!
There are always improvements that can made - and in many cases LOTS of improvement - but the spirit of that post, I think, is that when people start yelling about government involvement in their lives, they don't realise the extent to which government are already involved, providing basic services that they take for granted. -
FWB 56,369 posts
Seen 6 months ago
Registered 20 years agoTrowel wrote:
Andy Burnham's Twitter:Over the moon about strong support for NHS - an institution I will defend to my dying day, 2nd only to Everton FC.
That was on the Channel 4 news last night. My heart jumped a bit too. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoThe_Escapist wrote:
There are always improvements that can made - and in many cases LOTS of improvement - but the spirit of that post, I think, is that when people start yelling about government involvement in their lives, they don't realise the extent to which government are already involved, providing basic services that they take for granted.
This is all very true, but the main thrust of the antis is their fear that the government will do a piss-poor job of running health care. So trying to counter their argument by listing examples of why that fear is justified in other fields the government operates things is not something I would stand up applaud as oh so clever.
I have to say, the reaction of many in the UK over the assault by a tiny minority of vocal nutters must be making IRONOMAN glow with pride. Talk of fucking treason, FFS. One can only hope it's an elaborate parody but I very much doubt this to be the case. It certainly makes me think the gap is wider in the mind than it is in the minds. -
Oh you're so above it all khani. -
chopsen 21,958 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoKhanivor wrote:
This is all very true, but the main thrust of the antis is their fear that the government will do a piss-poor job of running health care.
Which is true. The NHS works despite, not because, of the government. -
But that's not true is it. If our system was private we'd have the same bureaucracy but with profits being the main reasoning behind every procedure being done, the NHS benefits because it doesn't sacrifice general compassion for the sake of profit. So the whole "in spite of" premise isn't entirely the case. -
Khanivor wrote:
Yes, yes. Bit like Obama cocking up his own sales pitch by bashing the US postal and pimping UPS, as an example of how the private sector can compete against government. Oops!
The_Escapist wrote:
This is all very true, but the main thrust of the antis is their fear that the government will do a piss-poor job of running health care. So trying to counter their argument by listing examples of why that fear is justified in other fields the government operates things is not something I would stand up applaud as oh so clever.
There are always improvements that can made - and in many cases LOTS of improvement - but the spirit of that post, I think, is that when people start yelling about government involvement in their lives, they don't realise the extent to which government are already involved, providing basic services that they take for granted.
Not one to let these people off the hook though, they'd still be ignoring two important points:
1) The centrepiece of the healthcare reform being proposed is public option insurance, not the actual takeover and running of the service itself, so they needn't worry
2) It's not as if the private insurers are doing such a bang up job anyway, so the quality bar is it currently stands is pretty low -
Khanivor wrote:
richardtock wrote:
How is it legal for politicians to take money from special interest groups and lobbies?
Is that legal over here?
o_0
Do you think the campaign contribution fairy puts the money under the pillow before elections?
Have you paid any attention to British politics er, like, ever?
Yeah. I know that you can accept campaign contributions, as a party, from people, up to a very strict limit per person. What I was wondering was if individuals can take sums from special interest groups. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agorichardtock wrote:
Yeah. I know that you can accept campaign contributions, as a party, from people, up to a very strict limit per person. What I was wondering was if individuals can take sums from special interest groups.
You cannot take money from special interest groups directly in the US. There are things called PACs which allow people to essentially pool money and send that off. However, this money still comes from individuals; Proctor and Gamble can't send a politician a big fat check.
It's essentially exactly the same in the UK with a few differences which don't amount to shit; politics is controlled by the people with money. Or do you think all those Lords Labour appointed were put there for their skills as legislators. Also, if a politician in the US was found to be making bills because he had got a big fat check from a special interest group he'd go to prison, unlike the UK, where the Lord would be supported by his party, ignored by the law and claim he dun nuffink wrong.
Campaign finance reform is the most important change that needs to be made to politics. Do that, and everything else will pretty much fall into place, (although the town hall and teaparty shite show how special interest groups have already begun to think outside the box. However, a fringe will always be a fringe, and they cannot match the money that flows into the system from special interests in the current system). -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoThe_Escapist wrote:
Not one to let these people off the hook though, they'd still be ignoring two important points:
1) The centrepiece of the healthcare reform being proposed is public option insurance, not the actual takeover and running of the service itself, so they needn't worry
2) It's not as if the private insurers are doing such a bang up job anyway, so the quality bar is it currently stands is pretty low
1) There's a lot more to it than that. Also, the public option would - thank fuck - drive many private companies out of business, or at least their profits way down. For some, this is a legitimate fear, (if your pension was invested in such a company would you be thrilled at the prospect of losing it?)
2) The problem is access to health care, not the quality of it. The private insurers want to make sure as few people as possible get access to it as when they do, their profits go down. However, if you are fortunate enough to get access to the health care then there's an awful lot of evidence the US has some of the best in the world. Unfortunately, in this argument, this very important distinction, between access and quality, is being ignored.
I hope that real reform occurs. Since I moved from the UK fears about injury or sickness have never been far from my mind. It's an unpleasant addition to one's life, it reduces the quality of life. Saying that, I was never fear-free when my treatment would have been under the NHS. Free it might have been, but certain to be awesome? Fuck no.
At the end of the day, no system will ever be perfect. But the American system, where you can have a CEO of a health company leave with a billion dollar golden parachute, is obviously terminally fucking skewed in favour of the wrong people. -
chopsen 21,958 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 16 years agocubbymoore wrote:
But that's not true is it. If our system was private we'd have the same bureaucracy but with profits being the main reasoning behind every procedure being done, the NHS benefits because it doesn't sacrifice general compassion for the sake of profit. So the whole "in spite of" premise isn't entirely the case.
Socialised health care is a good idea. You can be not for profit and publicly funded without government ministers from whitehall coming up with "excellent" ideas which are stupid crap waste of money: circular re-organisation of SHA to PCTs to new PCTs which are the same as the SHAs, choose and book, NPfIT, dismantling fund holding just to re-introduce it under another name and implement so it doesn't work, fucking up every junior doctor's career, massively overspending on the GP contract and consultant contract due to sheer incompetence and arrogance, unnecessary and unwanted primary health care centres being introduced despite nobody (patients, pcts, clinical staff) feel the need for them, causing overspend due to PFIs being viewed as a "good idea" of getting stuff done on the cheap and fucking that up, spending endless money on business consultants who mainly seem to recommend more business consultancy as a solution. etc etc.
Most of these were down to poorly though out ideas being poorly implemented by a DoH that is more interested in providing short term bullshit headlines and soundbites to keep the government sweet with a small demographic of floating voters, instead of actually running a health service that delivers what the public needs. -
Hmm amidst the "US must be wrong because it always is" usual backlash, a few points are being missed.
Yes, in Britain you do indeed have the option to go private, however you also pay for the NHS the moment you begin work, so essentially going private is paying for what you should get, twice.
Not many people are seperating the largely brilliant work done by employees of the NHS, from the NHS as policy. I believe the US based comments refer to the NHS as a policy.
The problem is we are an aging population; How long will the system last when the minority of working age people are paying more for a majority aging population, many of which rely more on state aid because the government has done a piss poor job over education people about pensions? Longer live, more medical treatment, more demand, spiralling costs..... like it or not, there has to be a change. -
chopsen 21,958 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoEverAfter wrote:
like it or not, there has to be a change.
From what, treating old to people? -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoI think the best system would be one run by private companies which send the bill to the government's health department. This would obviously have to be heavily regulated and inspected, but then you get the benefits of both systems while reducing the negatives of both systems.
Still not going to be perfect, but it would at least make for a worthwhile experiment. -
Khanivor wrote:
I meant quality of service from the private insurers, which so often means denial of.
The problem is access to health care, not the quality of it
I hope that real reform occurs. Since I moved from the UK fears about injury or sickness have never been far from my mind. It's an unpleasant addition to one's life, it reduces the quality of life.
Amen. I once got sick in America when I was over working. I had travel insurance but it had to be 'verified' before they'd take an appointment and treat me.
I read on another website that health shouldn't be a factor of income, that income is meant to affect standard of living, not be a matter of life and death. Couldn't agree more. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoI had a friend rip off her entire big toenail when we were boating over the weekend. After some drunken first aid she should have gone to a doctor, at the very least for some anti-biotics, but didn't because she had no health insurance and didn't fall into a category which would allow her Medicaid. She got taken to a doc by her mum in the end, but it helps to illustrate that you don't need big health problems for the current state of affairs to fuck with people's lives. -
FWB 56,369 posts
Seen 6 months ago
Registered 20 years agoSolution? Don't travel or live in America. Go to Canada instead. It's nicer anyway. -
Khanivor wrote:
You've just described the NHS though. The whole regulation part is that.
I think the best system would be one run by private companies which send the bill to the government's health department. This would obviously have to be heavily regulated and inspected, but then you get the benefits of both systems while reducing the negatives of both systems.
Still not going to be perfect, but it would at least make for a worthwhile experiment. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoI meant regulated as in controlling costs and the like, not as in fucking with the system for the sole purpose of trying to generate vote-winning headlines. -
FWB wrote:
Solution? Don't travel or live in America. Go to Canada instead. It's nicer anyway.
I'll try to remember that when I'm floating in the pool tomorrow
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
