• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care

I dunno Laila, it has some major budgetary problems. Never say never.

We will never dismantle the NHS. I can confidently say that imo.
I would bet the majority of the British public would rather see our nukes and our military cut than the NHS removed entirely.
 
Last edited:
It's called unsustainable national welfare, and it's turning England into a second-rate country.

It is not unsustainable and England is not turning into a second rate country.. it is! (and yes the last part is ironic)

The Brits will either undo NH, or it will undo itself. It's inevitable.

LOL in what universe? Seriously, NH or UHC is a cornerstone of British and European life.

And yes, we're stepping in the same steamy pile of dog doo step by step.

No you are not. Yours is far worse since it is run by private companies that need profit to justify things.
 
We will never dismantle the NHS. I can confidently say that imo.
I would bet the majority of the British public would rather see our nukes and our military cut than the NHS removed entirely.

Agreed fully.. same with other European nations. They are willing to pay higher taxes to have UHC (NHS in the UK). They are on the other hand not willing to pump billions into the military.
 
I would pay higher taxes for NHS.
I would not support it for the military tho.

So not surprising it is the same for many other European countries.
 
We will never dismantle the NHS. I can confidently say that imo.
I would bet the majority of the British public would rather see our nukes and our military cut than the NHS removed entirely.
It really isn't any of my business to be perfectly honest. I came to this thread to see which of my countrymen were going to opine as I figured it was related to the American pro-UHC side. The UK is a staunch ally of the U.S. so naturally I wish the best for your country as well as mine. I think from what I've seen though that if the UK keeps the NHC major reforms and cost reduction measures will have to be implemented, by cost reduction I mean the root causes and not reaction to the back end which requires limitations on payouts.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm the one who has pointed to history with specifics. You rely on pronouncements of what is clear.

Again, this is not a new issue. Democrats even tried hard once before (hence the Harry and Louise). Republicans held both the WH and Congress. Please point to me the effort they put into health care reform.

During the recent efforts they had their say but were ignored by the left.
 
During the recent efforts they had their say but were ignored by the left.

Again, with democrats in control pushing, they have said nothing. History. All they do is spread is spread misinforamtion trying to kill it so they don't have to do anything. Show me one thing they did in powere to push reform.
 
No. You've used hysterics, emotional arguments, talking points, outright propaganda, and even bull**** statistics. But I've definitely never seen specifics from you.

:lamo When you internalize stereotypes too much, you start reading things not written. ;) :lamo
 
Maybe you have heard me say it...I dont think it is GOING to be thrown out. i doubt the republicans will win back the congress and I doubt they have enough ummmph (or balls) to attempt to throw it out. Democrats will continue to create and pander to the crippled and dependent pets that keep them elected. We will eventually have universal health care. And we will in short order have 17 trillion dollar debt that we wont be able to pay even the interest on. inflation will increase and unemployment will increase.

I dont think the republicans are answer...two sides of the same coin...Im sure you have seen me say that. We MAY overcome this...but it will take enough citizens to say no more and to vote them ALL out. I dont know when or if THAT will happen. I quite honestly cant foresee what we will look like in 8 years.


I certainly agree they are two sides of the same coin, but the fact remains, we need reform. And we need an honest effort at it. We need to remove those who pander to misinformation. Both sides have them. What we will look in 8 years depends on what we do. I honestly never believed any president could do as much damaga as Bush did, so I have had to rethink that belief. But, progress comes from working hard and taking some risk. Not being reckless, but being bold enough to tackle something that will be difficult. At least that has been done.
 
It really isn't any of my business to be perfectly honest. I came to this thread to see which of my countrymen were going to opine as I figured it was related to the American pro-UHC side. The UK is a staunch ally of the U.S. so naturally I wish the best for your country as well as mine. I think from what I've seen though that if the UK keeps the NHC major reforms and cost reduction measures will have to be implemented, by cost reduction I mean the root causes and not reaction to the back end which requires limitations on payouts.

You seem to forget... the NHS is still way cheaper than anything the US has.. No doubt the NHS could use some reforms and cut the fat off so to say, but dismantling it outright.. no way. Compared to the US, the NHS is a freaking bargin on every level.
 
NHS funding is supposedly ring-fenced from the cutbacks deriving from the dire economic state which the bankers have left us in, not from any inherent financial mismanagement. The conservative changes are entirely dogma driven. Tony Bliar's New Labour had increased funding to almost match the European average, while subcontracting much of the provision of services to private sector concerns. The PFI (Private Finance Initiative) system has been disastrous. This is where a health region contracts with a private builder for new hospital borrowing the finance from the market. the building remains the property of the builder, who leases it back to the health authority which paid them to build it. Normally the contract lasts up to 30 years, but incredibly, in the case of the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, they will never own their building! The current NHS is a hollow shell, forced to adopt dubious notional business type practices in the daily operation of a public service. The Tory changes superimposed on this may well put the service at risk, not because it is inefficient or ineffective, but because it has been milked dry.
 
Last edited:
Again, with democrats in control pushing, they have said nothing. History. All they do is spread is spread misinforamtion trying to kill it so they don't have to do anything. Show me one thing they did in powere to push reform.

Are your ears and mind closed? Seriously, stop with your partisan lies. I won't provide you with endless links to prove that the GOP did have ideas, but here's one.

Ezra Klein - The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill
 
:lamo When you internalize stereotypes too much, you start reading things not written. ;) :lamo
Calling out bull**** isn't stereotyping. Maybe you should learn what that word means. K, thx.

You seem to forget... the NHS is still way cheaper than anything the US has.. No doubt the NHS could use some reforms and cut the fat off so to say, but dismantling it outright.. no way. Compared to the US, the NHS is a freaking bargin on every level.
I'm so glad you used the word cheaper. It's the perfect term to describe UHC. Value is when the asked price and it's utility meet as closely as possible, cheap is typically of inferior quality. Now you guys are getting it.
 
Calling out bull**** isn't stereotyping. Maybe you should learn what that word means. K, thx.

:lamo

If you were doing that, you might have a point. As you seem to just be mouthing a stock stereotype, not so much.
 
:lamo When you internalize stereotypes too much, you start reading things not written. ;) :lamo

:lamo

If you were doing that, you might have a point. As you seem to just be mouthing a stock stereotype, not so much.
Well, been fun but you aren't even smart enough to know what a stereotype is so now I'll have to put you on ignore. I think it's even more hilarious that you laugh at all of this instead of just owning your incompetance. Well, been fun. Bye loser. :lamo

So worth the points.
 
I would pay higher taxes for NHS.
I would not support it for the military tho.

So not surprising it is the same for many other European countries.

So you want to make sure your healthy for the London bombing? LOL, I'm glad Churchill saw it a little differently.

That's easy to say when you have the USA to protect you. We don't have anyone to protect us.
 
Well, been fun but you aren't even smart enough to know what a stereotype is so now I'll have to put you on ignore. I think it's even more hilarious that you laugh at all of this instead of just owning your incompetance. Well, been fun. Bye loser. :lamo

So worth the points.

:lamo

Run if you must. ;)
 
I'm so glad you used the word cheaper. It's the perfect term to describe UHC. Value is when the asked price and it's utility meet as closely as possible, cheap is typically of inferior quality. Now you guys are getting it.

Cheap does not mean inferior quality by any means. That is why we have medical statistics, and they show that despite Europeans on average paying half the amount for healthcare than American, we get as good if not better care. And that is the truth of it. Now you can deny it all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. If UHC was so terrible, then we would live shorter lives in Europe and be at the bottom individual health statistics.. we are not, we are in the top of most.

And often expensive means you have been taken for a ride. Take a Bang & Olafusen. Their products are expensive as hell, because of the design. But in reality the bits and pieces inside are no different than an ordinary tv or stereo.. you pay for the design and get a Phillips TV at a high price. Or say Ferrari sun glasses.. they are expensive as hell because of the name, but a cheap Ray Band is just as good. Higher price does not mean you get maximum for your money.. it often means you have been "taken for a ride". A store that sells milk for 15 bucks a gallon vs a store that sells it for 5 bucks a gallon ... do you really think that the 15 buck a gallon milk is superior?
 
Cheap does not mean inferior quality by any means. That is why we have medical statistics, and they show that despite Europeans on average paying half the amount for healthcare than American, we get as good if not better care. And that is the truth of it. Now you can deny it all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. If UHC was so terrible, then we would live shorter lives in Europe and be at the bottom individual health statistics.. we are not, we are in the top of most.

And often expensive means you have been taken for a ride. Take a Bang & Olafusen. Their products are expensive as hell, because of the design. But in reality the bits and pieces inside are no different than an ordinary tv or stereo.. you pay for the design and get a Phillips TV at a high price. Or say Ferrari sun glasses.. they are expensive as hell because of the name, but a cheap Ray Band is just as good. Higher price does not mean you get maximum for your money.. it often means you have been "taken for a ride". A store that sells milk for 15 bucks a gallon vs a store that sells it for 5 bucks a gallon ... do you really think that the 15 buck a gallon milk is superior?
You keep repeating the same argument even after it was explained why it doesn't work. How about tweak it a little using the suggested methodology and then we can discuss it.
 
You keep repeating the same argument even after it was explained why it doesn't work. How about tweak it a little using the suggested methodology and then we can discuss it.

I know many Brits in the States that were disgusted with the healthcare system there, and are dumbfounded why we are considering switching to such an abortion of a plan here.
 
Are your ears and mind closed? Seriously, stop with your partisan lies. I won't provide you with endless links to prove that the GOP did have ideas, but here's one.

Ezra Klein - The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill

And those ideas were put in the bill, despite you saying they were ignored.

Did you really expect that the bill was going to be modeled exactly along the conservative line? If they wanted the bill tailored to their expectations, they should have taken care of it when they had the Senate, House and the White House. But guess what? They weren't interested, so now they have to take the position of being in the minority. When they take back Congress they can modify it more to their liking, like they did with Social Security and Medicare...;)
 
I know many Brits in the States that were disgusted with the healthcare system there, and are dumbfounded why we are considering switching to such an abortion of a plan here.

How strange, they must be responding to the Pavlovian "death panel" drumbeat. In spite of the undoubted superiority of the NHS, flawed as it may be, there is not and was not ever an intention to introduce the system in the USA. They must be as deluded as their rightwing associates.
 
And those ideas were put in the bill, despite you saying they were ignored.

Did you really expect that the bill was going to be modeled exactly along the conservative line? If they wanted the bill tailored to their expectations, they should have taken care of it when they had the Senate, House and the White House. But guess what? They weren't interested, so now they have to take the position of being in the minority. When they take back Congress they can modify it more to their liking, like they did with Social Security and Medicare...;)

Fair enough. My point still stands. They didn't just sit back on the side lines and do nothing as "what's his name" was saying.
 
Back
Top Bottom