US Adverts on National Healthcare

Illumination article here on free healthcare in Kansas and how even a wealthy gynaecologist could end up without health cover.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/21/healthcare-provision-us-uk

Do you remember what spawned this whole hip replacement side discussion?  You saying that people over 65 waited 2-3 years for hip replacement.  They don't and they haven't in the very least in a long while.  The only evidence you've provided that people ever have waited that long is anecdotal from the '80s.

A report highlighting how those average waiting times and met targets on average times can be misleading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7686275.stm

When did the UK government promise that the NHS would cover everything other than trivial operations? 

When the NHS came into existence in 1948, as noted in this speech by Clement Attlee (Prime Minister 1945 - 1951):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/nhs/5147.shtml?all=1&id=5147 (NHS references from 10:18 onward)

Sorry, Paul.  You'll have to transcribe if you want me to know what that speech says..  We don't have speakers.  But, of course, if it was a serious promise about the NHS, then you probably will be able to find it elsewhere.

Even though the NHS has nothing to do with health care reform proposals (and it's not just about the ads but a concerted effort to propagandise this issue in many forms of media), since you've asked:

British woman tricked into appearing on an anti-NHS advert  She's not the only one.  Others have talked about being duped into participating.
In Defence of the NHS (talks about some of the lies in the ads and elsewhere during this "debate")

Interesting find about Kate Spall and Katie Brickell. They've both been working to get better cancer treatment on the NHS for a while and very critical of the NHS system. They've both been very happy to share their stories in the press long before the US ads, so I would think that they both must have had an idea that these stories would be aired in the US.

And even if they didn't realize, what difference does it make?   If their criticisms of the NHS are valid, they don't become any less valid when presented to an American audience instead of a British audience.   

If you want to argue that somebody has taken something you said out of context to make it sound as though you were claiming something you never intended, then that's fair enough, but whether it's done in the U.S. or the U.K. is irrelevant.

Sorry, Paul.  You'll have to transcribe if you want me to know what that speech says..  We don't have speakers.

Just the relevant clip:

"Now I turn to the National Health Service.  We're seeking here not merely to provide services for those who are sick, but to make a healthy nation.  The aim is to ensure that the provision of proper care and treatment shall not depend on financial resources, and that when you are sick you'll be free from the money worries which so often accompany illness. 

"The scheme gives a complete cover for health, by pooling the nation's resources, and paying the bill collectively.  It's not dependent on insurance; everyone is eligible.  It covers all kinds of care - doctor, dentist,  midwife, health visitor, occulist and optician, and surgeon.  It provides for treatment in hospitals and sanitoriums, and for the services of specialists of all kinds.  Help in the home when people are sick will be given wherever possible.  Spectacles, dentures, appliances, and artificial limbs will be available."

Slightly off-topic here (as I'm not jumping into this discussion), but those aren't really 'personal attacks' (in the sense of, say, an ad hominem). They are critiquing your rhetorical/argumentive ability.

In other words, attacking me versus discussing/debating the merits/ lack of this current bill.

I'm happy to debate the relative merits of various plans,

So, let's begin this process and keep the personal stuff out of it OK? What do you feel has merit in the current bill being proposed and what do you think needs improvement? I'll start by saying I think that the current bill on the table isn't clear enough in how it will be administered, and I'm not in favor of the government controlling healthcare. I also don't feel that it will be sustainable, as it's not cost effective.

In other words, attacking me versus discussing/debating the merits/ lack of this current bill.

No. A personal attack would be based on something about you (e.g. 'Your argument is wrong because you're a capitalist pig!'). It's not a personal attack if it is critiquing your rhetoric (e.g. 'Your argument isn't working because it evades the actual issue').

[MOD NOTE]

In other words, attacking me versus discussing/debating the merits/ lack of this current bill.

So, let's begin this process and keep the personal stuff out of it OK?

Either debate the issue or don't debate at all.  Leave your own hurt feelings out of it.


This is absolutely correct:

No. A personal attack would be based on something about you (e.g. 'Your argument is wrong because you're a capitalist pig!'). It's not a personal attack if it is critiquing your rhetoric (e.g. 'Your argument isn't working because it evades the actual issue').

Nobody is attacking YOU.  They are, however, disagreeing with what you are saying.  If you can't handle that then you need to step back from the debate.

Any questions or comments PM me, but this portion of the debate is closed and anymore discussion on whether or not you were personally attacked will be deleted.

Quite frankly, I don't understand your question. Do you not know that medicare is a government health program for those 65 and older? It's not sustainable in it's current model and will have to be overhauled. Medical care is very good in the US overall, but medicare recipients need a supplemental insurance to offset what medicare doesn't cover.

Indeed. So even with largely single-payer Medicare, a private insurance market continues to exist, insurance companies actually make a lot of $$$ of Medicare recipients, and the actual provision of health services to enrollees continues to remain completely private. And yet you'd have us believe that just providing a government-insurance option - note that word, option, not a largely single payer system like Medicare - would lead to a "government takeover" of healthcare? You're falling for the insurance company scare tactics on this one.

There will always be waiting lists, there are waiting lists in the US except they just don't call it that.

Just the point I was making.  And that it why I called this statement double-speak:

The fact is that under the last 10 years waiting times have reduced considerable, in fact only last week there was a report out that said England no longer has waiting lists because the times had fallen below the targets.

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

1948: "Pay into our scheme (and you have no choice, by the way) and we'll cover you for X, Y, and Z when you need them."

2009: "You need Z?  Oh no, we only cover X and Y now.  If you want Z you'll have to pay for it yourself."

What do you call that then?

And yet you'd have us believe that just providing a government-insurance option - note that word, option, not a largely single payer system like Medicare - would lead to a "government takeover" of healthcare? You're falling for the insurance company scare tactics on this one.

I wouldn't lead you to believe anything. I've checked the facts of the bill, and that's what's leading me to this conclusion:

http://www.factcheck.org

And yet you'd have us believe that just providing a government-insurance option - note that word, option, not a largely single payer system like Medicare - would lead to a "government takeover" of healthcare?

Yes, note the word "option."   It implies choice. 

If the government insurance scheme is merely an option, why do there need to be any clauses in the bill to restrict your right to keep your existing coverage, or to take out a new policy?   

Yes, note the word "option."   It implies choice. 

If the government insurance scheme is merely an option, why do there need to be any clauses in the bill to restrict your right to keep your existing coverage, or to take out a new policy?   

"the" bill? There are several floating around, but nothing has even made it out of committee in the Senate.

"the" bill?

H.R. 3200.

H.R. 3200.

Which has a cat's chance in hell of being enacted given it's basis is not even under discussion in the various Senate committees that have their fingers in the health care pie. Because of the Senate's bizarre filibuster rules, the real action on healthcare is in the Senate as anything that passes there is likely to have to garner 60 votes.

Here's an example form the link that jw posted regarding the bill that's under discussion in the Senate's health committee:

The Lewin Group still estimated there would be an impact, albeit a much smaller one. This type of federal plan would attract an estimated 17 million people, with 10.4 million moving off private plans, another Lewin study projected (see Figure 4). That’s if the plan were open to individuals and small businesses. And if such a federal plan were open to all businesses, the numbers don’t go up by much: 20.6 million would join the federal option, with 12.5 million moving off private plans, according to Lewin.

This in a country with a population of 300 million...

And of course no bill anywhere is even remotely proposing anything that suggests a government takeover of the actual provision of health services a la NHS.