Obama Care: Res Ipsa Loquitur:

Posted by: Russ on 25 November 2013

Some time ago, I endured the whips and scorns cast by many of my well-meaning European and American friends by having the gall to question the policies of the chosen one whom I should very well know is better able to guide my future than I am.  At that time, I promised all of those who sang my praises on that thread that at some point I would pontificate on Obama Care.  Well, I wanted to, but I have been too busy watching with a combination of horror and amusement, the vast body of material which we are now provided by the Democrats themselves.  At first you could only hear about it on the hated Fox News channel, but eventually even the liberally-oriented cable organizations as well as the New York Times and Washington Post had to acknowledge what was going on. 

 

Now, Obama Care was passed when the Democrats held not only the White House, but both houses of Congress.  Not a single Republican voted for it—all of them predicting disaster.  The Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said: “We need to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it.”  Go Nancy!  Heartfelt Republican opposition was characterized as obstructionism and racism.   The bill mandated that all private health insurance plans include:

 

Insurers not being able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions

 

Insurers not being able to drop coverage for those who become sick

 

A ban on price discrimination based on sex, medical history, or community rating

 

Allowing “children” or dependents to remain on a parent’s policy through age 26

 

No lifetime or annual coverage caps on essential benefits—broadly defined in the bill as:

 

"ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care."

 

Contraception supplies mandatory

 

Elimination of co-pays and deductibles     

 

And with all of these “freebies”, Obama promised:

  1.  Health Insurance will be more affordable—across the board—saving families an average of $2,500.00 per year.
  2. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
  3. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan------PERIOD!

Hell, we really don’t need any of our mythical Supreme Beings to bring about miracles—we have Obama!

 

Now of course, like all the freebies promised by this unapologetic socialist—(who occupies the same Oval Office where Franklin Roosevelt worked day and night with Sir Winston Churchill to defeat Adolph Hitler and where William Jefferson Clinton worked day and night to get hum jobs from Monica Lewinski,) this was patently and obviously false—at the very least to anyone who could add two and two.  Unfortunately, it is apparent that a majority of the American People—at least a majority of Democrats, did not fit into that category.  The very Democratic leaders who pushed through passage of the bill are all on videotape parroting Obama’s talking points—word for word, just as they parroted President Bush’s words about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction—having seen the same intelligence reports he saw.

 

But in the case of Obama Care, they have proven themselves to have been lying, opportunistic weasels—just like their Boss.

 

Forget Operation Fast and Furious where Obama’s Attorney General sold guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels.  Forget the so-called Justice Department’s illegal investigation of Fox News executives.  Forget IRS (the same bunch who are supposed to enforce the individual mandate of Obama Care) targeting Tea Party and other conservative organizations.  Forget Obama and Hillary turning their backs on their own ambassadorial staff in Benghazi and letting them be murdered.  Forget their stonewalling Congress in all of the investigations of these matters.  Obama says he did not know about any of those scandals. 

 

Of course, he also said “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan---PERIOD.” In the past, Presidents have been held accountable for lying.  George H.W. Bush famously said: "Mark my words--no new taxes."  When he later raised taxes, the American People understandably and rightly held him responsible.  Obama has no more races to run, and it is doubtful that his own fall from grace will affect the coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  We shall see.

 

But as I say, forget all that—Obama Care affects millions of Americans and it is now obvious to all that its creator and namesake lied.  He didn’t forget—he didn’t misrepresent—he didn’t mis-state—He Lied!  53 percent of the American People now believe he is not trustworthy.  Well, Yeah!  We Racist Republicans (RR) were trying to tell you the truth five years ago.

 

So Obama Care got passed—all 2,200 pages of it.  The website was contracted out to a Canadian firm that had been dismissed from many other projects for failed results.  They had 3 ½ years to build the goddamn site and screwed it up royally.  Not with glitches—but with a completely faulty architecture.  As of today, 40 percent of the underlying structure—the back end—is not even built—the part that uh, actually pays the premiums to insurance companies!

 

But forget the website as well—that is the least of it.  So far 5.5 million Americans—almost all in the individual market-- have received cancellation notices from their companies.  Why?  Because they do not meet the list of some ten or so non-negotiable coverage items required by Obama Care.  So a 22 year-old male in perfect health with no wife or children who had a policy that did not include mamagrams, pap smears, or birth control pills now gets his relatively cheap policy cancelled.  But what the hell?  All he has to do is find a “better” policy for him on healthcare.gov—(once it starts working in 2045).  Oh, sure, the price may be higher—gee, ya think?  Now it is obvious that when the shit hits the fan with the individual mandate (recently delayed by Obama until two weeks after the 2014 midterm elections in order to protect several Democratic Senators who are going ape-shit over their own vulnerability) as many as one-hundred-million Americans may well lose their “crummy” plans.

 

Soon after passage, Obama granted “waivers” to over 1,500 organizations, including AARP and many of the huge labor unions who had helped him get it passed.  Several important states were given exemptions in order to appease them politically.   Now the major unions are going ape-shit because they have read the bill and discovered they may have to pay a reinsurance fee for each of their covered members.  Oh, but I forgot, Obama is considering a waiver for that as well.  After all, they voted correctly—and that is the only important thing to him.

 

But why would Obama lie about: (1) the cost of the bill to the government, (2) the cost of the bill to individuals, (3) the ability of individuals to keep their doctors and plans, (4) the fact that deductibles would go sky-high, (5) the fact that the intention behind the bill was, from the first, to do away with the private insurance market,   and most importantly that (6) the bill was (now acknowledged by even the New York Times) a giant scheme for the re-distribution of wealth?

 

BECAUSE HAD TOLD THE TRUTH, HE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ELECTED!

 

Now, the heathens are truly raging, the rats are leaving the ship, the lights have been turned on in the kitchen, the roaches are running under the stove, the insane are running the asylum, and the Democrats are pulling out all the political stops.  The Senate has changed the rules of cloture for filibustering, available in one form or another for over 200 years, so that a minority of Senators can no longer block appointees to the D.C. Court of Appeals—the second most powerful court in the land, because it is the court which decides administrative and regulatory cases and controversies—especially important to the cockroaches in today’s Washington--any challenges to administrative end-runs around Congress—including the Republican House of Representatives.  Hmmm.

 

Predictably Obama has chosen the strategy of blaming: (1) the insurance companies--(for cancelling the policies--even though it was his law that forced them to,) (2) the media (for having the guts to dare to question Him,) and (3) most hilarious of all, the Republicans--(even though not one voted for the garbage that became Obama Care and not one was consulted on either the content of the bill or the construction of His website.)

 

Obama is a sad, sad story.  Don’t get me wrong—he is enormously intelligent, apparently a great husband and father.  People who know him like him.  Until now, even with all the cynicism and incompetence, his likeability has kept his approval rating up.  And he is a political genius.  He knows how to campaign.  But to some extent he is either incompetent in the realm of actually governing OR in some ways, he is devilishly clever in governing in a radical way and then covering up the truth. 

 

Even sadder, as the first black man elected President of the United States, he might have been the inspiration even I, and others like me who knew where he came from politically and what he really stood for, (Chicago and the principles of Saul Alinsky) hoped he might be.   But sadly, a political hack from Chicago, black, white, or polka-dotted, is still a hack.  He promised to be a uniter—but no one has been more divisive.  And make no mistake—it is not white Republicans or Tea Party members who have created the division because he is black.  Rather, it is he and his race-baiting supporters who are vicious enough to claim that it is impossible to oppose the policies of a black president—UNLESS you are a racist.  There must, in short, be a double standard for blacks in that office.  And that, my friends, is by far the most damaging racist, paternalistic view one could hold. 

 

Black Americans of course support Obama by a factor of nearly 10-1.  But they make up only 15 percent of the country.  A very great part of white America elected President Obama.  (Fewer voted for him in 2012, so must one assume that they became racists overnight?)

It may be too late to stop the Democratic coalition in this country: too many checks are being written and there is, after all, the promise of all that wealth redistribution.  (Yummm!)  But at least, this train wreck that is Obama Care has proved beyond any doubt three things:

 

First, Barack Obama has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be capable of lying to the American People about anything and everything. 

 

Second:The kind of big government advocated by Barack Obama and his heir-apparent Hillary Clinton, is incompetent to either formulate sound policy or to execute it.

 

Third: Barack Obama is, whatever he may claim, attempting to introduce European Socialism into the United States, even as that ideology is being almost universally discredited.

 

The next step to "fix" Obama Cae will be single-payer socialized medicine--what they all said they wanted in the first place!

 

But now President Obama has turned from destroying the nation through domestic policies that are either naively incompetent or cynically socialistic—or both, in favor of the kind of pathetic foreign policy demonstrated by Neville Chamberlain in 1939—in the present case, leaving the Israelis to either attack Iran or allow themselves to be turned into a parking lot.  (But that’s another story.)  Or perhaps I am being unfair—The President of the United States says it is a good agreement.  But then he also said: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan—PERIOD!”

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by MangoMonkey

 

It isn't great, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

My contention is that healthcare should be affordable enough that ordinary people shouldn't need insurance for regular doctors visits, medicines etc - not really even for a broken leg.

 

Sure, if you need go for heart surgery or some really specialist procedure, where the bill is high you can insure yourself for that - and even there, with healthcare being affordable it shouldn't cost you your house if you really need to do so.

 

Insurance companies have little incentive to make healthcare affordable - they can just pass on the tab to the customers. Even the in-network out of network doesn't mean much.

 

Since doctors are several hundred thousand in debt by the time they're out of med school, they need to make a couple hundred thousand just to break even - specially when you tack on malpractice insurance.

 

Maybe the key is to finance higher education - make it free. Don't label it as socialism, capitalism etc.

 

You get roads and highways for 'free', don't you - sure - paid by your tax dollars.

 

Why not consider access to higher education simply basic infrastructure - something that a country needs.

 

a) That takes the pressure off off doctors to make big bucks.

b) They'll be in it because they want to, not because they'll become rich quick.

 

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Arfur Oddsocks

Is it Democrats or democracy itself that disturbs Republicans I wonder.

 

Gimme dat ol, European 'socialism' anytime.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Kevin-W
Originally Posted by Russ:

Some time ago, I endured the whips and scorns cast by many of my well-meaning European and American friends by having the gall to question the policies of the chosen one whom I should very well know is better able to guide my future than I am.

I think you'll find Russ, that  the "whips and scorns" of which you speak were not because you have "the gall to question the policies of the chosen one" but because you come out with the most prolix, ill-thought-out, incomprehensible crap to be seen on this forum since the days - a decade or more ago - of that mad homeopathist guy. It doesn't matter whether it's guns, gays or healthcare, your opinions would be offensive if they weren't so... well, odd.

 

It's enough to make one become a Yankee-baiting Marxist, I'll tell you! Like Arfur above, I'll take European "socialism" over your incoherent and bonkers neoliberalism any day.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Kevin-W
Originally Posted by MangoMonkey:

 

Insurance companies have little incentive to make healthcare affordable - they can just pass on the tab to the customers. Even the in-network out of network doesn't mean much.

 


 

You don't get it, do you? Why should insurance companies worry about making healthcare affordable? That's not their job. Their job is to make a profit. It's the state's job to look after ill people.

 

Perhaps if America spent less time and money spying on everyone else in the world, you might be able to afford some sort of heathcare provision. That the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world cannot do this in the 21st century - preferring to bicker over minute points of ill-considered ideology instead - ought to be a source of shame to your government and to everyone else who opposes it.

 

By the way - what's the "In-network out of network"? I may be being dense but I have no idea of what you're on about.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Clay Bingham
Originally Posted by Kevin-W:
Originally Posted by Russ:

Some time ago, I endured the whips and scorns cast by many of my well-meaning European and American friends by having the gall to question the policies of the chosen one whom I should very well know is better able to guide my future than I am.

I think you'll find Russ, that  the "whips and scorns" of which you speak were not because you have "the gall to question the policies of the chosen one" but because you come out with the most prolix, ill-thought-out, incomprehensible crap to be seen on this forum since the days - a decade or more ago - of that mad homeopathist guy. It doesn't matter whether it's guns, gays or healthcare, your opinions would be offensive if they weren't so... well, odd.

 

It's enough to make one become a Yankee-baiting Marxist, I'll tell you! Like Arfur above, I'll take European "socialism" over your incoherent and bonkers neoliberalism any day.

Kevin

 

 

I normally pass on the political ranting that sometimes occurs here but, on this occasion, I have to thank you for this response. Perfect.

 

 

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Bruce Woodhouse

I try not to make this point oo often from my obviously vested interest but in discussion of US Healthcare it is valid. For all its failings we in the UK have a comprehensive healthcare system free at the point of access, avaliable to all.

 

Value your NHS, respect it, and don't take it for granted.

 

I find it almost impossible to imagine that a country with the resources (and founding ideals) of the USA has evolved a system where your health-care depends on what you earn. Where medical care is at least in part driven by profit motive and by fear of litigation rather than clinical best practice.

 

I don't really understand the Obamacare package other than in the broadest terms but anything that represents a drive to more equitable access must be good.

 

Bruce

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by backfromoz

Bruce, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I always believed that GP practices were businesses with contracts with the NHS for the provision of healthcare.

 

Also that today the Practice receives funds and decides how best to apportion those funds with regards to the healthcare needs of that particular population. guided by local and national health initiatives.

 

Also today there are many Group Practices where by the Practitioners are directors of the business and or share holders of the business.

 

Practices can employ salaried GP's , but it is still a private business employing them.

 

So General Practice could be said to be wholly Private in its set up.

 

If the NHS was to take over all GP practices and salary the GP's on controlled salary structure with merit based annual increments, say at Band 8B or C on Agenda For Change salaries. Also TO RUN SERVICES 24 HOURS PER DAY 365 DAYS A YEARS.  Would this make General Practice more attractive and as  a result generate a greater interest for Doctors to enter General Practice.

 

I know that locally there is a plan to set up a Privately owned GP led Private Walk in Center , to try and improve access to Medical Care for many of the local citizens compared to the poor service provided by many local Practices.

 

I would add that my own local GP practice is excellent, but is only open office hours and not at weekends. So the Emergency Doctor service picks up the slack for out of normal business hours.

 

I worked in Sydney for 4 years and do not consider their system better than ours. it seems to be a halfway house model based upon UK and US.

 

regards David

 

 

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Bruce Woodhouse
Originally Posted by backfromoz:

Bruce, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I always believed that GP practices were businesses with contracts with the NHS for the provision of healthcare.

 

Also that today the Practice receives funds and decides how best to apportion those funds with regards to the healthcare needs of that particular population. guided by local and national health initiatives.

 

Also today there are many Group Practices where by the Practitioners are directors of the business and or share holders of the business.

 

Practices can employ salaried GP's , but it is still a private business employing them.

 

So General Practice could be said to be wholly Private in its set up.

 

If the NHS was to take over all GP practices and salary the GP's on controlled salary structure with merit based annual increments, say at Band 8B or C on Agenda For Change salaries. Also TO RUN SERVICES 24 HOURS PER DAY 365 DAYS A YEARS.  Would this make General Practice more attractive and as  a result generate a greater interest for Doctors to enter General Practice.

 

I know that locally there is a plan to set up a Privately owned GP led Private Walk in Center , to try and improve access to Medical Care for many of the local citizens compared to the poor service provided by many local Practices.

 

I would add that my own local GP practice is excellent, but is only open office hours and not at weekends. So the Emergency Doctor service picks up the slack for out of normal business hours.

 

I worked in Sydney for 4 years and do not consider their system better than ours. it seems to be a halfway house model based upon UK and US.

 

regards David

 

 


The first bit is right, the rest is mainly not. There is a very important misunderstanding. Our system is ferociously complicated. I'lll try to be brief. What follows is a bit simplified but the principles are sound

 

GP surgeries are generally run as private small businesses contracting to the NHS. Most have some owner-partners and some salaried employee GPs. As a partner my income is a share of the profits and relates to NHS work and some private income (a small percentage of the total) from things like private medicals, occupational health advice for example. I also get paid to teach/train others. As a small business If I decide to re-paint the surgery or buy new chairs my profits fall. If I employ more staff to do the work the profits fall.

 

A chunk of our income is performance based ie it comes from hitting targets for good clinical care such as controlling blood pressure, managing diabetes well etc. We also get incentives that may be local or national such as schemes to reduce casualty admissions, or improve detection of dementia or alcohol problems for example. We have a few minor incentives to use resources efficiently and according to best practice but not just purely by cost.

 

HOWEVER. The amount of resources spent on my patients such as the cost of medication, number of referrals for hip replacements etc etc HAS NO IMPACT on my income. This is the crucial element. Decisions to prescribe cheaper drugs (or more expensive drugs) do not affect my pocket. My decisions to refer or not etc are of course made with one eye on using the limited NHS resources well and fairly but they are not an influence on my earnings. This is absolutely as it should be. If I say you do not need a referral to a specialist it is because I don't think it is needed-not to save my income.

 

To complicate matters GP's now belong to and 'lead' Clinical Comissioning Groups. They hold local budgets to purchase secondary and intermediate care services but NOT Primary Care. In other words some GP's are involved in designing and purchasing sevices for the local health economy however once again this is NOT about GP income. GP contracts are with NHS England. That role as part of a CCG is about using the skills of primary care to help design future services and look for improvements in quality and value. GP practices can also be providers-bidding to provide a service to the community that might have been provided in secondary care before (say a sexual health clinc). To do this they have to compete on a level playing field with any other bidder and show that they can do it better. If the GP practices get that contract all conflicts of interest will be declared in the decision making process which is open to public scutiny.

 

re your point about all GP's being salaried. As a profit sharing partner I work my arse off. I work part time and still do 60hrs a week. If I was salaried to the state I would clock in and clock off-and that is absolutely not the good way to provide care for patients. I care for my population, and if that means staying late I will do it. You'd also need to probably double the number of GP's in your suggested system. In truth if we started again that might be the way to do it but it will take a massive culture shift to dismantle the current established independent contractor status of UK GPs

 

I could go on, but a) I have not the time b) I've never really wanted to engage in debates about the state of the NHS on here as it feels bit to close to home. I use this Forum to break from work!

 

I remain generally proud of the NHS and being part of it. It is not perfect, other systems have good and bad too. The basic principle of equitable and free access remains solid.

 

Hope I've clarified things a bit.

 

Bruce

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by totemphile

Russ, I haven't bothered reading your entire post as it is mostly rubbish anyways. 

 

However, I say this, a society that doesn't manage to provide access to healthcare to all of its citizens can hardly be considered a developed nation let alone a civil one. 

 

The fact that about 50 million people in America had no access to medical insurance and care is not only ludicrous but outright disgusting. Moreover, it just shows what a rotten country America really is. Rotten at the core and the Republicans have played a huge part in screwing your nation left, right and centre!

 

I'm disappointed with Obama all right but his push to reform the healthcare system was probably one of his brighter moments.

 

That's all just MHO of course. 

 

 

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Russ

Arfur, Kevin, and Clay,

 

I respect your views, including your preference for your own health care systems, and would never allow myself to translate my disagreement with those views into ad hominem attacks on any of you.  I have to admit I find myself wondering if your respective attachments to government-controlled medical care might not be due to your lack of experience with the U.S. system.  To be fair, I suppose my own opposition to it might be due to my own lack of experience with health care in Europe--perhaps the government of the UK has proven more capable of the avoidance of buggering up (I love that expression!) everything it does than that of the United States.  

 

I even try to avoid ad hominem attacks on politicians, preferring to attack their policies when I do not agree--and only slip into open attacks on their character when they have openly lied to me.

 

Kevin: I entirely agree with you on onef point: First that the insurance companies are in business to make a profit for their shareholders.  I would point out, however, that this very profit motive has enabled us, until very recently, to become, as you say,"...the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world..."

 

I have to admit that we go too far in spying on our own people and on our allies.  And this is not a factor only of Democratic administrations.  

 

FYI: "In network" means those physicians an hospitals with whom and insurer has specific payment agreements.  If you go to one who is out of network, you may have more out of pocket expenses.

 

Bruce, I am intrigued by your assessment of healthcare in the UK:

 

"...For all its failings we in the UK have a comprehensive healthcare system free at the point of access..."

 

I think it wonderful that there is a service available all that is absolutely "free".  This attitude, specifically that the government can provide services to its citizens at no cost is what I fear will one day (apparently quite soon) will take over in the minds of our citizenry as well and ultimately deprive us of the independent and self-reliant spirit that once enabled both the UK and the US to become the powers that we were.

 

There is a common misconception that poor people (even those with two TV sets) in the U.S. have no access to health care.  Whenever I, covered by insurance that my wife and I pay nearly $5,000.00 a year for have had to go to an emergency room, we see a sign informing us that by law, we cannot be refused care if we cannot pay.  And I assure you that if someone needs to be hospitalized, he or she will not be turned away.

 

Do the rich in the US receive better health care than the poor?  Damned straight!  They also send their kids to better schools, drive better cars, and live in better houses.  May it always be so!  I have noticed that the rich in other countries receive better care as well--often coming to the United States to get it. 

 

I do find it interesting that none of you addressed any of the points I made about the President's lies and political cronyism.  I sympathize with all of you to the extent that I know that so many Europeans were overcome with joy by the election of a socialist president in the United States, and how painful his obvious failures must be for you.  When his administration is followed by that of Hillary Clinton, I hope with all my heart that the allies to whose aid we never failed to come will do well on their own against the next tyranny.  Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan are no longer available.

 

Mohit: More later--you came up with some very good points--that deserve comment,

 

Best regards,

 

Russ

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Bruce Woodhouse
Free at the point of access. We all know we have to pay for it through taxation. However they don't check my ability to pay in the ER and treat me accordingly. They check my vital signs and allocate what i need.
 
By the way the rich don't always get better care. They get more medicine and believe me that is not always good. The US is very slowly grasping that nettle but you only have to look at comparative costs vs outcomes to understand it is a long way down the wrong road.
 
 
 
Bruce
Posted on: 26 November 2013 by backfromoz

Bruce

 

Many thanks for your reply.

 

One of the problems for those of us who work in local trusts is we are not fully aware of the status of GP's and the relationship with the provision of allied health services and care.

 

A weird anomaly I heard of earlier this year in an adjacent Trust was that the Podiatry Dept in the acute Hospital was being charged out at consultant rates. Hence referrals to the Podiatry Hospital service reduced and as a result increased the burden upon the Diabetic and Vascular Consultants Surgeons. This seems daft as the Allied Health Professions are there to provide services with the explicit aim to reduce the burden upon the Consultants And Surgeons and hospital bed occupancy rates.

 

Indeed one of the Podiatry team has moved to another part of the country to take up a post in the Acute Hospital which is still providing a very high standard of care and has reduced the burden upon the Consultants and Surgeons.

 

We do not as yet have a national service as there are so many variances in priorities and provision.

 

Thanks again

 

David

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Kevin-W
Originally Posted by Russ:

 


Do the rich in the US receive better health care than the poor?  Damned straight!  They also send their kids to better schools, drive better cars, and live in better houses.  May it always be so! 

 

I will keep my comment brief because this quote says more about your warped view of the world than I ever could.

 

It is fair enough that the rich driver better cars and live in bigger houses than the poor. But it is certainly not right that the rich should get better education and healthcare. In these matters everyone should get the same treatment. It is the mark of a civilised society. I feel a slight tinge of pity for you that you feel there is merit in this sorry state of affairs continuing.

 

And if you believe that anyone in Europe thinks Obama is a socialist, then you are seriously deluded my friend.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by totemphile
Originally Posted by Russ:

...I hope with all my heart that the allies to whose aid we never failed to come will do well on their own against the next tyranny.

Here's a curveball Russ. Many would consider the US being the world's leading terrorists. And before you have a go at them, it's not just those crazy Islamic fundamentalists...

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Kevin-W
Originally Posted by Russ:

  I have to admit I find myself wondering if your respective attachments to government-controlled medical care might not be due to your lack of experience with the U.S. system.

 

 

Try not be so US-centric.

 

British attachment to the NHS is nothing to do with us not having tasted the joys of the American healthcare system. It is to do with an attitude developed during the Second World War and its immediate aftermath - a communitarian spirit, if you like. Having fought six hard years against Axis tyrranny, there was an urge to build a better society - the "land fit for heroes" we failed to build after the Great War. The NHS was the centrepiece, the fulcrum on which this spirit turned.

 

Despite cynical attempts to dismantle and libel it, affection for the NHS, with all its faults, remains, and long may it do so.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by MangoMonkey
Originally Posted by Kevin-W:
Originally Posted by MangoMonkey:

 

Insurance companies have little incentive to make healthcare affordable - they can just pass on the tab to the customers. Even the in-network out of network doesn't mean much.

 


 

You don't get it, do you? Why should insurance companies worry about making healthcare affordable? That's not their job. Their job is to make a profit. It's the state's job to look after ill people.

 

That's exactly my point. Obama hasn't done the right thing - instead of attacking the core problem - which is the cost of healthcare, he's targeting mandatory insurance, which probably will end up fattening insurance companies further.

 

The core problem here is that the healthcare system is more of a monopoly - and reeks of extortion at times, rather than a free market. In a free market system, you're free to choose. When you're sick, and in the middle of a heart attack, you can't go comparison shopping.

 

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by totemphile
Originally Posted by Kevin-W:
Despite cynical attempts to dismantle and libel it, affection for the NHS, with all its faults, remains, and long may it do so.

Not wanting to sound corny but you British should be very proud of the NHS. IMHO it is the shining light in civil healthcare. Yes the NHS has huge challenges to overcome but these don't take anything away from the noble ideals that underlined the founding of it. Many years back in London I had to be hospitalised due to a bad leg infection and the care and attention I received from nurses and doctors were superb. I didn't have to pay a penny at the hospital. Although, as mentioned before, I did pay UK taxes and NI at the time.

 

 

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by lutyens

I hope Russ isn't a cyclist too otherwise i won't cope. 

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by lutyens:

I hope Russ isn't a cyclist too otherwise i won't cope. 

.....and this thread will disappear along with some wonderful contribitions from the likes of Bruce and Kevin....

cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Jasonf

It takes two to Tango, Don!

 

Personally, I welcome Russ's posts, if anything they rouse the passion in the bones and stir the sleeping Forum from the general mundanity of system comparison.

 

The problem is Russ, your posts tend to be written and loaded with a lot of vernacular, and that makes it a little difficult for us 'non-Americans' to follow, and that's possibly why sometimes you get lambasted. But on a positive note, and Dare I say it, I do feel a sort of 'slow boat to China, process of an education in American Republican politics... still they do make a good read.

 

It's tricky to comment on American health care because I don't fully understand it and actually your post has not made it that much clearer, probably because your more concerned with that Socialist Obama. But as Kevin points out, he does not seem particularly aligned to the Socialist model even considering his Obama Care package. Which brings me to quite an important issue, for me, that is how do you define "socialism". It's no secret, yet still quite surprising, that your good self and many millions of like minded Americans, seem to have this peculiar 'fear' of 'socialism', which is a terrible shame. And the only logical reason for this anxiety is that this fear is based on a century of homegrown propaganda.

 

For a starters, and I am sure you are aware of this Russ, there are many forms of socialism and a few of them are currently in play in most western countries (and central/Southern American) as we speak. The most successful models are those seen in Northern Europe and given that it's populations have the highest standard of living on the planet and, according to the Economist, "probably the best-governed states in the world" and the Nordic Model has the best welfare system yet devised, I wonder what there is to be scared of? Here is a general list that will surely put the willies up you.

 

1. a "universalist" welfare state.

 

2. promoting social mobility and ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights. (See link below).

 

2. maximising labor force participation,

 

3. promoting gender equality,

 

4. egalitarian and extensive benefit levels.

 

5. large magnitude of wealth redistribution.

 

6. liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.

 

                                                                        A selection from Wicki.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...not-driven-by-growth

 

Of course, there is a price to pay... 'overall tax burdens' (as a percentage of GDP) and are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46%), Norway (43.9) and Finland (43.3%).

 

But you will be pleased to know that the Nordic model is a mixture of capitalism and socialism, as almost all so called 'socialist' states are today. For example, Sweden and Norway would be described as Social Democracy (advocates a welfare state, regulated capitalism and some public ownership of supporting industries) where as Britain would be described as Liberal Socialism (It considers both liberty and equality as compatible with each other and mutually needed to achieve greater economic equality that is necessary to achieve greater economic liberty) from our great friend, John Stuart Mill.

 

So as we can see, the modern 'socialist' model is providing its citizens with the best free health care, the best education, the highest gender equality, the best social mobility for the poorest (children) and the most egalitarian societies on the planet or putting it another way, 'known to man'.

 

So please tell me Russ, what is there to fear?

 

I will take a guess by referring back to the notion that this irrational fear of socialism is based on a century of homegrown propaganda that seeks to keep the American populous continually in anxiety.

 

In the 'First Red Scare' ..."it had long been a practice of more conservative politicians to refer to progressive reforms such as child labor laws and women's suffrage as "Communist" or "Red plots."This tendency increased in the 1930s in reaction to the New Deal policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Many conservatives equated the New Deal with socialism or Communism, and saw its policies as evidence that the government had been heavily influenced by Communist policy-makers in the Roosevelt administration". Then came your old friend, McCarthyism during the 50-60's, add a little North Korea and Vietnam for good measure and "Bob's your Uncle" as the saying goes.

 

I guess my point is that, if we accept that seeking a society that provides the kind of social welfare or wellbeing, that the 'Nordic Model' provides its citizens then your fear of 'modern socialism' is irrational. And therefore, I suspect a heavy dose of good old American homegrown propaganda at work.

 

May I suggest your next holiday should be to that great nation that provided you with the best sounding speakers you ever heard. You could even visit the Guru factory and take a lovely sauna to chill and ponder the evils of modern socialism as you sit there cleansing your soul. And further ponder the birth of the dawn of a new American welfare system and at least give the guy some credit for trying to pull the wretched beast from the cesspit of health insurance.

 

Jason.

 

p.s. I thought lying was part and parcel of politics. I would also point out that the Nordic countries have less political corruption than pretty much everybody else.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Kevin-W

+1. Great post Jason.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Russ

Thanks, Jason for your thoughtful post and willingness to discuss issues, even though you and I obviously disagree on many points.  As you imply, disagreement does not have to end in mutual disrespect.

 

In answer to your question, I would have to say that the fear most of those of my ideological ilk have about socialism is not so much the result of "...a century of homegrown propaganda..." (although I have to admit there has been some of that from the extreme right) as it is the result of a century of watching the failure of socialist states (from the mildest form, all the way to the communism of the Soviet Union)--in short any sort of community where the lives of citizens tend to be planned and executed by the government.

 

You don't have to convince me, by the way of the paradisical nature of life in the Nordic countries.  I would point out, however, that the situation in your neck of the woods (there I go with the vernacular again  ) is a bit different, demographically, from most areas of the United States.  Consider for example that the population of my state (Texas) is almost exactly equal to that of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroes combined!  We have far less of a homogeneous population in terms of ethnicity than you do.  On top of that, the estimated population of illegal aliens (or to use the politically acceptable term "undocumented workers" Texas alone is about half the population of Norway.  Some of my own fear of a socialistic state in the U.S. has to do with the fact that many states and cities--as well as the attorney general appointed by President Obama--choose not to enforce immigration laws, and beyond that even, grant the same welfare benefits to illegals as to U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens.  Top that off with the demand by Democrats that picture ID s NOT be required to vote, and the formula becomes Illegal Aliens = Democrat Voters! 

 

I would also submit to you (without benefit of certainty, mind you) that the population of the Nordic countries has, overall, a superior work ethic to that of much of my own country.  I AM certain that much of that work ethic was brought to our country by settlers from the countries of your region.  Not to say that any ethnicity lacks examples of good work ethic, but I suspect we have more in our country, of all colors and regions who have become dependent on government largess.

 

So I have to admit I use the terms "socialism" and "socialist" quite roughly to describe any tendency to redistribute wealth--beyond the redistribution inherent in any progressive tax system. 

 

I do fear socialism in those terms.  I like my country with all its foibles and all its shortcomings.  With respect, I feel you were poking a little fun at old Russ with the word "Fear".  Fear is a good  thing if there is something to fear.  Paranoia is a functional emotion--if they really are out to get you.

 

Best regards,

 

Russ

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by totemphile

Well put Jason!

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by totemphile
Originally Posted by Russ:

You don't have to convince me, by the way of the paradisical nature of life in the Nordic countries.  I would point out, however, that the situation in your neck of the woods (there I go with the vernacular again  ) is a bit different, demographically, from most areas of the United States.  Consider for example that the population of my state (Texas) is almost exactly equal to that of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroes combined!  We have far less of a homogeneous population in terms of ethnicity than you do.  On top of that, the estimated population of illegal aliens (or to use the politically acceptable term "undocumented workers" Texas alone is about half the population of Norway.  Some of my own fear of a socialistic state in the U.S. has to do with the fact that many states and cities--as well as the attorney general appointed by President Obama--choose not to enforce immigration laws, and beyond that even, grant the same welfare benefits to illegals as to U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens.  Top that off with the demand by Democrats that picture ID s NOT be required to vote, and the formula becomes Illegal Aliens = Democrat Voters! 

 

I would also submit to you (without benefit of certainty, mind you) that the population of the Nordic countries has, overall, a superior work ethic to that of much of my own country.  I AM certain that much of that work ethic was brought to our country by settlers from the countries of your region.  Not to say that any ethnicity lacks examples of good work ethic, but I suspect we have more in our country, of all colors and regions who have become dependent on government largess.

 

So I have to admit I use the terms "socialism" and "socialist" quite roughly to describe any tendency to redistribute wealth--beyond the redistribution inherent in any progressive tax system. 

 

I do fear socialism in those terms.  I like my country with all its foibles and all its shortcomings.  With respect, I feel you were poking a little fun at old Russ with the word "Fear".  Fear is a good  thing if there is something to fear.  Paranoia is a functional emotion--if they really are out to get you.

 

Best regards,

 

Russ

Just imagine how far all that Texan oil could have gone in creating an affluent state, where everyone has the same access to free education and healthcare, had the profits been put to good use, rather than enrich the cronies of the Bush family and the rest of yer so called elite and all so admirable Texan oil dynasty families. Just a thought. But then again that of course would be in contrast to that great American dream. Problem is, that dream is a pretty egocentric view of the world and its future. No love lost in a society such as this. Maybe a bit of charity for good measure. Btw. that's tax deductible, innit?!

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Russ

Jason: I would add that Norway would be one of the places I would most want to live were it not for the many factors that hold me to my home state.  The other two top contenders would be Switzerland and the British Columbia province of Canada.  I wonder (I have not researched it) how much money I would be required to have to get a settlement permit in your country, considering that:

 

(1) I am not a citizen

(2) I do not speak Norwegian

(3) I do not know any Norwegian families (except for you, my friend )

(4) I do not possess any specialist skills

(5) I am 68 years old, unemployed, and retired.

 

And if I got there, say with just my passport, or a temporary visa, or say, decided to come as an "undocumented worker", I wonder how long the Norwegian government would allow me to stay once I threw myself on the mercy of the various welfare programs available to people in Norway?

 

I wonder how long it would take the Swiss to deport my sorry old butt if I arrived in one of my favorite cities on the planet (Lucerne) with no money, no job, and speaking German, French, and Italian as you would expect a redneck hick Republican American (God what a lot of negative adjectives!) to speak.

 

Now consider that a number equal to half your population is living underground in my own state alone, and that the powers that be in this country currently in control, want them to be able to vote themselves benefits from my tax dollars--without proving themselves to be citizens.  Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the Folkeregisteret includes registration of all Norwegian citizens including birthdate and various other identifying information, and that showing of this card is required for all elections.  That is precisely what MY government is trying to prevent.  My "fear" is that my own reactionary, McCarthyite vote will thereby be diluted by the votes of others who do not have to prove their identity--just as your country requires you to do.