has anyone covered the NHS republican slander free healthcare for americans thing today?

[Tortington]

i cant find an existing thread is there one.

i been listenng to radio on the train - talk shows need to comment

I know what you mean Orm

Not just that- but how can anyone be so proud of a system where if the worst happens and you can't actually sue someone it could easily be you without healthcare

Fabbo, then

I watched the Republican on Newsnight last night and whaddaya know, the bloke had no salienta rguments whatsoever. I alsolove the fact they chose Stephen Hawkins- I can only assume they thought he couldn't fight back because he is disabled. Twats.

I'd rather be a communist country with an equaly absed heathcare system than supportive of a fittest only sectarian based regime that denies care to those most on need. Fortnately of course we're not Communist either. Wankers.

rather enlightening to how much some Americans actually know about the UK. We're OK when they want bodies for invasion purposes but anything else is too good for them (well those who can pay, natch)

The crazy thing about the news coverage/GOP attack ads is that Obama IS NOT proposing universal public healthcare! As far as I understand he's proposing an extension of Medicare for the 46 million people who have no insurance so that everyone has access to healthcare. Those who prefer private insurance can still get it.

The Huff Post website (and app for iphones) has links to some interesting articles and videos for anyone interested.

$3 trillion over the next decade is simply unaffordable. There is no mechanism by which to not treat illigal aliens. The right to buy private insurance from another state will be stripped away. The quality of care (not to mention research) will be lowered for everyone.

This plan is most certainly the thin edge of the socialist medical system wedge. In AMerica (thankfully!) Socialism is regarded as a bad thing. Over here, it seems to be a good thing (at least on MN).

American's don't want to pay for this very very expensive plan. And, even if it was free, the NHS is most certainly not a better medical system than the one in the states.

Malung said:
"What is not being reported in the USA is that we too have private insurance so we have a choice. Pay for fast treatment or have it free on the NHS. In my experience there is little difference in the waiting time. "

First of all, the NHS is most certainly not free. Secondly, private medical insurance in the UK is not at all as available as it is in the US. Private insurance in the UK is very expensive and covers very little. In the US, it is affordable and I've never known anyone with a job or a who was a student who didn't have it.

and you know athene, every singleargument based on politics / afforsdability /choice vapourises imo the minute one person is denied haelthcare, or a baby dies etc

As it happens I feelfairly sure you have a MN history of being republican anti NHS, no? Which is fine of course but as a Brit I am damned proud of my free at the point of receipt system.

There was something mentioned on newsnighht on how life expectancy here is longer and the system cheaperas a % of gdp, quite interesting imo

'because the common person knows it is a 'socialist' country'

I am an example of what can happen to a decent working family through chance- disabled kids, redundancies etc. There are very few peolpe indeed who are exempt fromthe fear of that through affluence, and it seems incredibly short sighted.

I heard on the radio yesterday that in a study dealing with deaths resulting from treatable conditions, the US came 20th. Out of 20. I think they should be ashamed that they are the world's richest country, and yet think it's acceptable to leave millions with no access to proper medical treatment. And as for their 'analysis' of end of life care, don't get me started. My DF died of cancer a few years ago and the staff who treated him were just superb, from nurses to doctors, to hospice care to the wonderful Marie Curie angels nurses (and yes, I know that they are not all NHS, but it's the same principle; of treating people according to need as opposed to income).

I gave birth to both my children on the NHS, and while my experiences were not exactly perfect, rather that than what my cousin experienced in the US when she had hers. She was haemorraging (sp?) heavily, and yet they wouldn't touch her until she had signed everything in triplicate. And she had plenty of money/insurance. God help the poor woman who didn't in such circumstances.

We may have queues for treatment of non-urgent conditions, but in terms of emergency treatment, I know which country I'd prefer to be treated (or not...) in.

National health care = getting people better and back out to work (ie keeping the country productive)

Private health care = keeping people in the system to make money. There's no incentive for recovery.

me as an ex employee of Macmillan, the links between some of the cancer charities and the NHS are impossible to unravel- we never *(or didnt) supply nurses without guarantees the NHS would maintain their positions, and they (like indeed MC) make huge differences

I'll wave a reddish flag here too! I fail to see why socialism (with a small 's') could really ever be seen as a bad thing. To do your best to care for everyone who needs it regardless of means seems the ultimate sign of a decent human society.

I wonder if America (or rather the republican side) is aware just how it is alooking to the UK at this moment?

being dependant on working no matter how ill you are or you might die is not free is it?

According to The Undercover Economist (Tim Harford, who is very keen on the free market so hardly a crypto-socialist) the US government already spends very significantly more per head of population (not just the eligible population, the whole population) on public health care than we do in the UK. They just don't get the NHS to show for it (since most of the population needs to fork out for private insurance and/or pay-as-they-go anyway) so are spending more and getting less.

This does seem, on the face of it, unbelievable -- but he seems to have the facts to back it up. I'd be interested to see a detailed response to what he says from someone who knows about this stuff.

As afr as I am aware there are no illegal aliens in the USA (bar Roswell obv) just a lot of human beings from different birth countries

TheDailyMail (I bet you dont like that shortening ....) see if you can find newsnight from last night for the republican aprty being asked just that- youtube or anything? Not sure where it would be

AFAICS there was nowt but waffle as a response

Those definitions of private and socialised health care bear little resemblance to the true definitions.

The NHS is not all bad. It does some things well, and others not so well. In a time of crisis the NHS performs very well. I have had two children on the NHS. The first was an okay (but preventable) experience. One simple scan that didn't make the budget would have made a crash section a calm planned one. And my other experience (elective section) was very good. So, generally speaking, those were good experiences. But, the NHS is also very eurocratic and inefficient. It is wasteful with our tax money. I don't believe the government is qualified to run a medical system (and that goe for any government). Medical care is matter for physiician, patient, and family.

I am not saying that the US mecidal system is perfect or even that it doesn't need urgent reform. But, Obama's plan is not it. It will not bring the cost down. And it will lower the standard of medical care for everyone.

How can you lower the standard of medicalcare for everyone if not everyone can access it?

For the rpiveledged perhaps.

Athene: I don't believe the government is qualified to run a medical system (and that goe for any government). Medical care is matter for physiician, patient, and family.

You miss one important aspect of who runs the US medical system from your list: the insurance companies.

Oh and let's not forget the pharmaceuticals companies either.

It is already illegal not to treat someone with a medical emergency in A&E -- insured or not.

80% of American oppose government sponsored medical care for illegal aliens. Technically, they are not eligible in Obamas plan. The problem is there is no mechanism by which to check someone's residency status when they appear for treatment.

Some people who are unable to pay should be treated, in my opinion. But, not able bodied people who are working illegally taking jobs from Americans who want to work but can't get a job because it's cheaper to pay an illegal alien cash in hand.

Message withdrawn

I agree that insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies have too much power. Those things should be addressed. But, why make it illegal to get private insurance from across state lines?

Here is an article on a physicians perspective.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204005504574235751720822322.html