Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care

Boo Radley said:

Now, the question is what's the next step. Do we buckle down and try to improve? Or do we whine and let those who seek to stop reform win? Which would leave us with nothing.

Click to expand...

I have a problem with this part of what you said right here (well I had other problems with what you said, but this is the main one). No one with any intelligence wants to stop reform, they all agree reform is needed (conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists etc.). The disagreement arises on what reform is done. Liberals (many of them, anyway) want a move toward universal health care; many others including myself vehemently oppose this and want reform centered around opening up competition over state lines, cracking down on crack pot law suits etc.

Rightwingnutjob said:

I have a problem with this part of what you said right here (well I had other problems with what you said, but this is the main one). No one with any intelligence wants to stop reform, they all agree reform is needed (conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists etc.). The disagreement arises on what reform is done. Liberals (many of them, anyway) want a move toward universal health care; many others including myself vehemently oppose this and want reform centered around opening up competition over state lines, cracking down on crack pot law suits etc.

Click to expand...

That's not true. Really, it's not. This is not new. Efforts at reform have gone on for decades, and always republcians say they want reform, but whenever they are in power, they never take a single step. And everytime the issue comes up, the same tired, old, efforts to stop real debate begin. Remember Harry and Louise? No, there is a real effort to prevent anything from happening. They cover this by saying they really want reform, but when given the chance, they awlays let it drift away, doing nothing.

If we could stop with the crap, the socialism, the false comparisons, the death panel type lies, and actually roll up our sleves and really debate and work for reform, I would praise all involved. But that was not what happened. Not even close. And it never has happened. Again, we have history on this. It isn't new.

Boo Radley said:

That's not true. Really, it's not. This is not new. Efforts at reform have gone on for decades, and always republcians say they want reform, but whenever they are in power, they never take a single step. And everytime the issue comes up, the same tired, old, efforts to stop real debate begin. Remember Harry and Louise? No, there is a real effort to prevent anything from happening. They cover this by saying they really want reform, but when given the chance, they awlays let it drift away, doing nothing.

If we could stop with the crap, the socialism, the false comparisons, the death panel type lies, and actually roll up our sleves and really debate and work for reform, I would praise all involved. But that was not what happened. Not even close. And it never has happened. Again, we have history on this. It isn't new.

Click to expand...

No you're blinded by your bias. It's clear that both sides don't agree on how to go about reform. As such neither side will get what it wants. Your side wants a more socialized health care system and mine wants to let a more free market approach solve it. Neither side agrees with the other.

Now let me approach it with the same attitude you used...

It's all the mean democrats fault. Every time a poor little conservative suggests something they say, 'no socialism is the only way.' All we conservatives want is a better system with cheaper health care for the poor but the mean democrats want to raise everyone's taxes to pay for health care for all. Those democrats are so ignorant. This is nothing new, look at the history books. Those democrats are part of a vast conspiracy to prevent any real reform from happening.


There see how that works?

Good to see socialist Europe is somewhat getting it and in turn dismantles many arguments made by the pro-socialist medicine crowd that uses that **** hole Europe as an example.

Rightwingnutjob said:

No you're blinded by your bias. It's clear that both sides don't agree on how to go about reform. As such neither side will get what it wants. Your side wants a more socialized health care system and mine wants to let a more free market approach solve it. Neither side agrees with the other.

Now let me approach it with the same attitude you used...

It's all the mean democrats fault. Every time a poor little conservative suggests something they say, 'no socialism is the only way.' All we conservatives want is a better system with cheaper health care for the poor but the mean democrats want to raise everyone's taxes to pay for health care for all. Those democrats are so ignorant. This is nothing new, look at the history books. Those democrats are part of a vast conspiracy to prevent any real reform from happening.


There see how that works?

Click to expand...

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.

Boo Radley said:

How soon we forget:

The scandal over treatment of outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has focused attention on the Army's decision to privatize the facilities support workforce at the hospital, a move commanders say left the building maintenance staff undermanned.

Privatized Walter Reed Workforce Gets Scrutiny - washingtonpost.com

We're no where near univerisal care. Personally I would prefer a univerisal provider for a lot of reasons. Remove it from an employer responsibility and allow business to compete fairly with the rest of the world. But, no one has proposed such a system. But, you are right that no matter what we will have a two tiered system. those who can afford more will always have more here in the states. And we will likely always give the very poor something. But the working poor and the middle class have no guaranties. ANd they don't have them without reform.

Our problems are many, and with people fighting to make reform impossible, it makes doing anything positive hard. But we have a step. Now, the question is what's the next step. Do we buckle down and try to improve? Or do we whine and let those who seek to stop reform win? Which would leave us with nothing.

Click to expand...

You assume that this is 'progress'. Tell me...do you REALLY think they thought out what they did? They passed SOMETHING...ANYTHING...and most of the poepl that support it dont have the first clue what they voted for...or support. You really think thats 'progress?' Hogwash...thats ideology. Its what happens when you allow politics to rule policy. Do tyou think they really have the first clue how much this will cost? And how is that new health care working out for you? They governed with ideology, by ideology, supported by ideologues. The only people that think this is a good idea are people that either wont use it or wont have to pay for it.

I think I have also posted some of the nightmares at the Army hospitals that may have triggered the Walter Reed situation. Army hospitals with 36 admin personnel for every caregiver. Administrators retired on active duty. I KNOW you have heard me say all areas of government need review including the military...including the hospitals.

Ive said it since I began posting here...Im not opposed to some form of healthcare reform. But not at the federal level. And even the state care needs carewful scrutiny. The state contracts care through private providers to cover medicare medicaid. A huge portion of that award goes to business owners that dont even live in the state...arent doctors or providers.

But they passed 'healthcare'

VanceMack said:

You assume that this is 'progress'. Tell me...do you REALLY think they thought out what they did? They passed SOMETHING...ANYTHING...and most of the poepl that support it dont have the first clue what they voted for...or support. You really think thats 'progress?' Hogwash...thats ideology. Its what happens when you allow politics to rule policy. Do tyou think they really have the first clue how much this will cost? And how is that new health care working out for you? They governed with ideology, by ideology, supported by ideologues. The only people that think this is a good idea are people that either wont use it or wont have to pay for it.

I think I have also posted some of the nightmares at the Army hospitals that may have triggered the Walter Reed situation. Army hospitals with 36 admin personnel for every caregiver. Administrators retired on active duty. I KNOW you have heard me say all areas of government need review including the military...including the hospitals.

Ive said it since I began posting here...Im not opposed to some form of healthcare reform. But not at the federal level. And even the state care needs carewful scrutiny. The state contracts care through private providers to cover medicare medicaid. A huge portion of that award goes to business owners that dont even live in the state...arent doctors or providers.

But they passed 'healthcare'

Click to expand...

I think they did what they could without pushing what was needed through, fearing a larger backlass. And yes, the journay of a thousands miles begins with a single step. On such a journey, that first step looks terribly inadequate. So does this one. But a begining is still a begining.

I worked some in VA hospitals as a young man. I was a medic in the Army and spent some time at Womack army hospital. I also worked at the University of Iowa hospital and clincs and mercy hospital. I've seen the VA, teaching hospitals and private hospitals. They all have flaws, but compared to the rhetoric, VA hospitals are not as bad as their rep. You also might check this out:

Stewart: So you just said, Bill Kristol just said that the government can run a first class health care system.

Kristol: Sure it can

Kristol admits to Stewart that government run health care is THE BEST! | Crooks and Liars

Reform, BTW, isn't going to happen at any other level in any effective manner. Hawaii may get it right and Massecuetts wrong. Florida might be rich and ND poor. That said, over all, the states have done the job either. Again, this isn't new. Yet, decades down the road, we still face the same problems, getting worse and worse. I just don't believe anyone else is going to tackle it.

Boo Radley said:

I think they did what they could without pushing what was needed through, fearing a larger backlass. And yes, the journay of a thousands miles begins with a single step. On such a journey, that first step looks terribly inadequate. So does this one. But a begining is still a begining.

I worked some in VA hospitals as a young man. I was a medic in the Army and spent some time at Womack army hospital. I also worked at the University of Iowa hospital and clincs and mercy hospital. I've seen the VA, teaching hospitals and private hospitals. They all have flaws, but compared to the rhetoric, VA hospitals are not as bad as their rep. You also might check this out:

Stewart: So you just said, Bill Kristol just said that the government can run a first class health care system.

Kristol: Sure it can

Kristol admits to Stewart that government run health care is THE BEST! | Crooks and Liars

Reform, BTW, isn't going to happen at any other level in any effective manner. Hawaii may get it right and Massecuetts wrong. Florida might be rich and ND poor. That said, over all, the states have done the job either. Again, this isn't new. Yet, decades down the road, we still face the same problems, getting worse and worse. I just don't believe anyone else is going to tackle it.

Click to expand...

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has put us into a 14 trillion dollar debt that they are now admitting is unsustainable...and you think creating another trillion dollar debt is a step forward? When you are screaming down a hill with no brakes, yanking on the wheel and going over the cliff is SOMETHING...

You didnt hear me criticize the healthcare at the VA. I have a significant amount of experience in them myself. My comments are that the VA...like the Army hospital systems, are admin heavy and cost way too much. Thats money that doesnt have to bne spent or could better be applied to servicemembers.

This plan is a nightmare. THATS why I have objected to it. I support local control...state reform...and tort reform. But FEDERAL control? How deep is that hole going to get before we cant dig out?

VanceMack said:

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has put us into a 14 trillion dollar debt that they are now admitting is unsustainable...and you think creating another trillion dollar debt is a step forward? When you are screaming down a hill with no brakes, yanking on the wheel and going over the cliff is SOMETHING...

You didnt hear me criticize the healthcare at the VA. I have a significant amount of experience in them myself. My comments are that the VA...like the Army hospital systems, are admin heavy and cost way too much. Thats money that doesnt have to bne spent or could better be applied to servicemembers.

This plan is a nightmare. THATS why I have objected to it. I support local control...state reform...and tort reform. But FEDERAL control? How deep is that hole going to get before we cant dig out?

Click to expand...

First, we are the govenment. We've accepted a lot of spending long before Obama. Long before Bush told us we could fight two wars and not pay for it. Long before Reagan, Carter and Ford.

But what I'm arguing is that if you don't like it, as few do, don't throw it out. Work to improve it. This is not the final version. Like all such bills, it will change. We will change it. But nothing happens if we don't start. That's just fact.

Boo Radley said:

First, we are the govenment. We've accepted a lot of spending long before Obama. Long before Bush told us we could fight two wars and not pay for it. Long before Reagan, Carter and Ford.

But what I'm arguing is that if you don't like it, as few do, don't throw it out. Work to improve it. This is not the final version. Like all such bills, it will change. We will change it. But nothing happens if we don't start. That's just fact.

Click to expand...

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 wouldn't describe it as Britain climbing out of a hole, but rather the Conservatives inserting their ideology where it doesn't belong by eliminating something that the public actually wants.

chevydriver1123 said:

Good to see socialist Europe is somewhat getting it and in turn dismantles many arguments made by the pro-socialist medicine crowd that uses that **** hole Europe as an example.

Click to expand...

That is not the reason UK is getting our UHC touched up. Socialism means nothing to the British. We are not paranoid like the Americans.
The ONLY reason this is happening is because the ****ing Conservatives are in goddamn office touching what doesn't need to be messed with.

But I can handle this for another 4 years because they will be leaving next election.
No touches our NHS and stays in office. Its political ****ing suicide.

Laila said:

That is not the reason UK is getting our UHC touched up. Socialism means nothing to the British. We are not paranoid like the Americans.
The ONLY reason this is happening is because the ****ing Conservatives are in goddamn office touching what doesn't need to be messed with.

But I can handle this for another 4 years because they will be leaving next election.
No touches our NHS and stays in office. Its political ****ing suicide.

Click to expand...

Excactly.. last time the Conservatives did something similar and the opposition had a credible likeable PM candidate, the Conservatives were booted out fast, and stayed in the wilderness for over a decade. Any conservative government that tries to fiddle too much or outright dismantle the UHC system of a country will loose the next election and stay out of office for a very long time. That is why most sane conservative parties are for UHC in Europe.

buck said:

I'll start out by saying sorry that I can't source this anymore. I used to have a link directly to the study, but lost it when the website I stored it at was deleted.

There was a statistical analysis done that I read about in the Sun Times about 2 years ago, in which they removed motor vehicle accidents and violent deaths (murders, etc) from the life expectancy statistics of every country. The result was that by removing these causes of death from all countries, the US was number one in life expectancy by a bit.

In other words, using life expectancy to argue that one health care system is better than another doesn't quite work. Although, it will never stop some from trying their darndest to shoe-horn it in.

Click to expand...

Listen, that may or may not be true but it is irrelevant. Removing parts of a statistic just because it shows a country in a bad way is not only morally wrong but also statistically wrong. You might kill many people with your bad driving, but so what? It still shortens the average life expectancy of the US. What is next.. removing fat people because you have more than the rest of us? Life expectancy is a statistic that shows the over all health of a country and how good that country is to keep its citizens alive. Some countries have drinking problems, others smoking, and some drive like crazy men.. it is all about the over all health of a country. And a huge part of that over all health, is the ability of the healthcare system to cope and keep people alive.

Laila said:

That is not the reason UK is getting our UHC touched up. Socialism means nothing to the British. We are not paranoid like the Americans.
The ONLY reason this is happening is because the ****ing Conservatives are in goddamn office touching what doesn't need to be messed with.

But I can handle this for another 4 years because they will be leaving next election.
No touches our NHS and stays in office. Its political ****ing suicide.

Click to expand...

Totally serious and honest inquiry from me.

Are the cuts to the system not necessary to reign in the fiscal budget?

PeteEU said:

Listen, that may or may not be true but it is irrelevant. Removing parts of a statistic just because it shows a country in a bad way is not only morally wrong but also statistically wrong.

Click to expand...

The reason it is relevant is that the causes of death that were removed from the statistics are not a reflection on the health care system. If you are looking to prove that one country has a bad health care system, you need to remove causes of death that are irrelevant to the argument. No health care system (even the wonderful NHS) is going to be able to resurrect someone that was shot to death or died due to blunt force trauma following a car accident.

It's fine to look at the causes of those deaths and blame the country, its citizens, politicians, or whatever. But, it's not the fault of an insurance company, hospital or doctor. Better access to health care or more medical research will not prevent those causes of death. Those causes of death are irrelevant to the argument. On the other hand, smoking and diet are relevant to the quality of a health care system, since they both lead to chronic conditions and the victims of the related diseases will require medical care. Medical research, doctor knowledge, access to care will all play a part in how long that individual lives.

Anyway, we’re just arguing in circles While I agree a country's life expectancy has it's place, it is not necessarily a reflection on the qulity of a country's health care system, at least not until you remove causes of death that a better doctor, etc will not have any affect on. And a better doctor is not going to be able to save someone that died on scene in a car accident or murder.

Orion said:

I wouldn't describe it as Britain climbing out of a hole, but rather the Conservatives inserting their ideology where it doesn't belong by eliminating something that the public actually wants.

Click to expand...

which 'public'...the broke ass brits that dont work or the people that actually pay for it and may want to make sure it is efficient?

Boo Radley said:

I'm sorry, but I'm the one who has pointed to history with specifics. You rely on pronouncements of what is clear.

Click to expand...

No. You've used hysterics, emotional arguments, talking points, outright propaganda, and even bull**** statistics. But I've definitely never seen specifics from you.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Totally serious and honest inquiry from me.

Are the cuts to the system not necessary to reign in the fiscal budget?

Click to expand...

I think some cuts are necessary but I do not trust the NHS in Conservative hands. I think their motivation goes beyond balancing the fiscal budget. It is no doubt their fantasy is to dismantle the UHC of UK.

VanceMack said:

which 'public'...the broke ass brits that dont work or the people that actually pay for it and may want to make sure it is efficient?

Click to expand...

I pay for it and I like it. I do not want Tory hands all over it.

Laila said:

I pay for it and I like it. I do not want Tory hands all over it.

Click to expand...

Because the LIBERALS have done such a good job managing it?

Thats the same kind of idiotic rhetoric we have here...as if the democrats werent as responsible for their share of that 14 trillion dollar debt than were republicans...

VanceMack said:

Because the LIBERALS have done such a good job managing it?

Thats the same kind of idiotic rhetoric we have here...as if the democrats werent as responsible for their share of that 14 trillion dollar debt than were republicans...

Click to expand...

They have actually.
I do not worry if the left has a hold of NHS.
No one trusts the Conservatives with NHS and we shouldn't.

I have no idea what you are talking about with Dems and debt and I don't really care either.

It's called unsustainable national welfare, and it's turning England into a second-rate country.

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

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

We will never dismantle the NHS.
Foolish dream.

Laila said:

We will never dismantle the NHS.
Foolish dream.

Click to expand...

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