Reply With QuoteYou're a fiscal conservative.Originally Posted by Ought Six
It is obvious that you have not been reading the thread. I proposed a number of alternatives.
You're a fiscal conservative.
The US healthcare system is not without it's flaws. But some ppeople tend to overlook that it does have its pros as well.
It has some of the fastest treatment times for ER throughout and absolutely the top notch system in the world of you can afford the treatment.
Canada has a brain drain of doctors to the US for this reason.
In the mean time, I got hit by a car in Australia through NO fault of my own, and had to pay $1500 ambulence fees because I wasn't insured for ambulence cover. How does that compare?
Actually to a degree, yes. The Royal Colleges hold a lot of power and ensure doctors get a cushy deal. For example they limit the number of medical school places a year to ensure there are no unemployed doctors and keep wages high. To date, no government has really dared take them on. It's exactly the same situation with barristers.
The overwhelming majority are NHS doctors, so yes they are government employees.
You've backtracked from "The Brits are desperately trying to privatise"
Last edited by Corrupt; 02-17-2012 at 09:16 AM.
The real problem with the NHS is the population has outgrown it and was never intended to cope with such a large population. Labour is being labour and will not back anything government will do, capping the amount non working families can claim in benefits is another very good example which is a slap in the face to the working poor of this country.
The NHS needs reform, without it the level of care will drop. It also needs to expand to cope with the rise in population, it however does not mean its being sold off in to private hands.
Ok, went through the thread again. In post 31, if I understand correctly, you want a fully privatized insurance market. How is that very different from the US system?
OT: Look! I've made 3 posts without calling anybody an asshole/ignorant, whatever... Chill out.
He is an insufferable idiot. Don't waste your time.
Population has nothing to do with that right? Or that the US has the most cosmetic surgeries in the world, and that is where money is?
Crash and burn thread.
Because at the time you were probably not covered. You are not Australian don't forget.
And explain to me how we are American?
I don't pay a cent for any of my medical care including dental.
Sounds universal to me.
How am I not on that list
You're one of the most ultra-right wing conservatives on MP.net, along with C.Puffs, LineDoggie and chauncy republicans...?
Then again, I consider myself a neocon, and thats heresy among normal conservatism.
Then again, I used to be a Stalinist so, make of that what you will...
Also, I've learned never to mock or talk bad about the NHS to Brits. They may talk about its deficiencies inside, but if you as a foreigner criticizes...God help you, the ranks close faster than you can say 'healthcare'
Because no one remembers you.How am I not on that list
The NHS is the closest thing the English have to a national religion -Nigel Lawson. And with good reason, in my experience.Also, I've learned never to mock or talk bad about the NHS to Brits. They may talk about its deficiencies inside, but if you as a foreigner criticizes...God help you, the ranks close faster than you can say 'healthcare'
I'm not an expert on Sweden, but my impression is that like Japan (which also has tax-payer subsidized health care), the overwhelming majority of the population works and contributes towards the system, and the amount of people who leech off it are miniscule. Also in Japan, people tend to make wise lifestyle choices: illegal drugs are rare, and people tend to eat sensibly.
As a result, heavy taxpayer subsidization of healthcare has been successful in Sweden and Japan.
However, it's different in the US, where we have a lot of people who simply want to lay around and be parasites. I work in a hospital, where I see ER patients arriving on a hourly basis, due to their lifestyle choices: heavy drug use, alcoholism, and junk food/fast food diets.
I have no problem with the government using my tax dollars with assisting those who are in temporary constraints and need a helping hand to get on their feet. During the approximate two years I was working for near-minimum wage, and had four mouths to feed, my kids were on government-funded health insurance, and I was grateful for the help. But I resent having to enable people who simply have no desire to do what it takes to survive and prosper on their own, and I think that in our society, a system like yours in Sweden or that in Japan would simply not work.
I think most people would agree that the US has different needs to Europe (and that most European countries have different needs to each other) and that there is no universally superior system. Countries should pursue a system which provides the best balance of quality, access to and cost of care for them. Imho, the NHS works for us in Britain. Leaper seems satisfied with his system in Sweden. You raised some good points about why a similar government run/funded system possibly would no work in the US.
Now if we could just get Ought Six to stop trying dictate to us about things he has no experience of, we might have a chance at a productive, insightful exchange of views.
Personally, having grown up with the NHS, which is entirely tax funded and free at point of use, I would be very much against any kind of privatisation. To me, there is nothing that can replace the peace of mind that I will get the care I need, should I require it, even if I'm flat broke. I'd definitely be against an almost entirely private system like the US has, especially given that it seems to cost more, without providing universal coverage (which to me is one of the key pillars of a health system)
Table nicked from an old BBC article
Posting Permissions
