US Adverts on National Healthcare

You're twisting what I said.  Read it again.  I said that this aspect of the NHS had already become a topic for satire because of the frequent news reports of waste and inefficiency. 

Sorry, Paul.  I like to live in the present.  Yes, Minister is a sitcome from the 80s or 90s.  Whatever clever insightful message it was sending out was about the situation in the 80s or 90s.  Not now.  And like I said, sit-coms are generally NOT where I go to for information or opinions.  But you're welcome to.

Obama addresses the myths ("concerns") people have about his proposed healthcare reform:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/22/obama.health.care/

• illegal immigrants will not be covered
• abortion coverage will not be mandated
• euthanasia is not a part of the plan; no death panels
• it is not a government takeover of healthcare; this is not socialised medicine

The Republican response is interesting because it claims that it will destroy the private system.  It hasn't in other countries.  There's no doubt about the fact it will change the system, but there's no reason to believe it will destroy it.  Nor is there reason to believe the change won't benefit Americans.

Obama addresses the myths ("concerns") people have about his proposed healthcare reform:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/22/obama.health.care/

• illegal immigrants will not be covered
• abortion coverage will not be mandated
• euthanasia is not a part of the plan; no death panels
• it is not a government takeover of healthcare; this is not socialised medicine

The Republican response is interesting because it claims that it will destroy the private system.  It hasn't in other countries.  There's no doubt about the fact it will change the system, but there's no reason to believe it will destroy it.  Nor is there reason to believe the change won't benefit Americans.

I've been keeping up with fact checking on these sites:

http://www.factcheck.org/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/package/health-care-reform09/what-it-means-for-you/health-care-reform-2009.html

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106180134

Is that 85% of Americans polled who already have healthcare/.  Those weren't the polls that I was seeing last week.  

My point was that the majority of Americans have health insurance and are happy with their coverage. Many favor reform, but are questioning this current bill.

Yes, she does have some negative views on the NHS and she is in the process of campaigning to improve the system - after all it has its flaws too. However, what she did not agree to was having her words used in a TV campaign designed to scare Americans into thinking that socialised healthcare is evil.

Yes, I do realize what they are campaigning for. My observation is that their stories haven't been distorted or changed in the US ads. They are highly critical of the NHS and have been very vocal about it in Britain. I'm not defending the actions of the CPR if they misrepresented their intentions, and it should be very easy to prove that they were misrepresented in court (if that's where this goes). I would imagine they signed releases and agreements, so hopefully they pursue it.

Typical bureaucratic double-speak.  If you still have to wait then you are on a waiting list, even if the average waiting time has met some arbitrarily set target. 

There will always be waiting lists, there are waiting lists in the US except they just don't call it that. How can there possibly not be a wait, particularly for elective surgery, unless the very moment that it's determined you require an operation (or you decide to have one) you are rushed into surgery? Which would just not be realistic because you'd then need teams and teams of surgeons just stood around waiting for something to come in.
The fact is that waiting times have been drastically reduced. I was even informed by a friend who was a nurse in a BUPA hospital not to bother paying at work for BUPA coverage when I was mentioning about adding my wife to it as due to the new NHS targets it wasn't worth it unless I got the cover for free (which I do)

And when people who have been paying into the system for decades on the understanding that certain things are covered, are now told that they will have to pay again, then it is nothing short of governmental fraud. 

No, I'm not saying that the present state of the system in the U.S. does not leave much to be desired.  I'm just saying that the NHS is not the perfect role model either.

Nobody is told that they will "HAVE TO" pay again.

And I've not seen anyone on here say that the NHS is perfect, just that it's a better system that in the US. Also nobody proposing legislation in the US has said that the NHS is the model, it's the right wing media, the lobbying insurance companies and Republicans that are using that as a smokescreen to defend their own self-interests.

Well, I don't see how her point of view has been taken out of proportion, as she's been saying the same thing in the British press. She HAS taken a negative position on the NHS and it's practices in her case, and chose to share her story with the press.

Because it has been used in ads as an attack against the very principal of the NHS, which is not what she was doing. She is campaigning for improvements under the banner of the NHS and supports the very principle of it.

My point was that the majority of Americans have health insurance and are happy with their coverage. Many favor reform, but are questioning this current bill.

Of course people who have healthcare are happy with the status quo.  That is not why we need reform.

And you keep saying that you don't want to rush this.  What would be the alternative?  Look at it for a couple of years, have a further consultation and whoops, it's election year and he hasn't done what he promised!. We TOLD you so.

There needs to be healthcare reform, the people who are opposed to this are either misinformed OR are profiting from the current system -and therefore pushing misinformation.  I felt sick to my stomach watching some of the coverage when I was over there.  People with so little empathy for others that they felt the need to use really horrible methods to campaign against something that could actually help people.  And the just plain rudeness was astounding.

It is a source of wonder that some are so vehemently opposed to a form of 'socialised' healthcare they've never experienced.  I find this perplexing.  For example, it would never behoove me to make sweeping statements or even in-depth assessments of say, the healthcare system, as I do not and have never lived there.  Or of how the system works in France, because although I do have experience of that it's in the rather distant past.

People with so little empathy for others that they felt the need to use really horrible methods to campaign against something that could actually help people.  And the just plain rudeness was astounding.

Sadly (and I really and truly mean SADLY from the bottom of my heart) I think that is the crux of the whole thing.... 

I've been keeping up with fact checking on these sites:

http://www.factcheck.org/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/package/health-care-reform09/what-it-means-for-you/health-care-reform-2009.html

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106180134

Good.  Then you know that most of the crap that's being put out there is scaremongering bull.

Sadly (and I really and truly mean SADLY from the bottom of my heart) I think that is the crux of the whole thing.... 

I think so too. And I also think that most people are probably too lazy, apathetic, etc. to do any research on their own to find out the facts.

Of course people who have healthcare are happy with the status quo.  That is not why we need reform.

It also possible to be happy with your current healthcare but realize the system of insurance-based access is completely broken. That 's the camp I fall into. I think the quality of healthcare I've received in the US has been absolutely excellent. But then I have the fortune to work in a profession where good insurance tends to be the norm. At my age, if I had a serious illness that prevented me from working, or if I lost my job (a distinct possibility at the moment) I would likely be completely screwed once my (expensive) COBRA coverage ran out after 18 months.

And you keep saying that you don't want to rush this.  What would be the alternative?  Look at it for a couple of years, have a further consultation and whoops, it's election year and he hasn't done what he promised!. We TOLD you so.

Attempts at providing universal access have been going on since Truman in 1948 so persoanlly I find the "rush" argument pretty comical. here's a history:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a_brief_history_universal_health_care_efforts_in_the_us.php?page=3

Lots of deja vu in there, especially regarding Truman's efforts!

Good.  Then you know that most of the crap that's being put out there is scaremongering bull.

Yes, some of it is scaremongering, but there are legitimate concerns about this bill. The goal in the current bill is to have the government controlling healthcare, and that's where there is a great divide. There are other alternatives, but there is no agreement even within the democratic party, and the idea of government in charge of healthcare isn't popular with most Americans.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/22/obamas_health_care_whopper_is_bigger_97989.html

Attempts at providing universal access have been going on since Truman in 1948 so persoanlly I find the "rush" argument pretty comical.

Obviously the universal healthcare debate has been going on for decades, but I am referring to the current administration trying to rush the current bill through Congress.