US Adverts on National Healthcare

The VA Hospitals in Clarksburg, WV and Pittsburgh, PA saved the husbands of two friends of mine from cancer.

The one in Albany sure helped my dad when he had a heart attack.  After dealing with the one in Burlington for him years ago, I was a bit shocked how nice the one in Albany was.  At least the cardiac ICU was nice.  Maybe the rest of the place was a dump.  The ICU in Albany was better than the ICU in the regular hospital in Burlington.

My dad also wouldn't be able to afford his drugs if it weren't for the VA.  He has few complaints over his treatment by them over the years.

The VA Hospitals in Clarksburg, WV and Pittsburgh, PA saved the husbands of two friends of mine from cancer.

The one in Albany sure helped my dad when he had a heart attack.  After dealing with the one in Burlington for him years ago, I was a bit shocked how nice the one in Albany was.  At least the cardiac ICU was nice.  Maybe the rest of the place was a dump.  The ICU in Albany was better than the ICU in the regular hospital in Burlington.

My dad also wouldn't be able to afford his drugs if it weren't for the VA.  He has few complaints over his treatment by them over the years.

I've been to the VA hospitals in Baltimore and one in Delaware (don't remember which, it was 8 years ago, and was way out on the DelMarVa penninsula) and they were both fine.  As I said before in response to the argument that the government is inept, you can find examples of ineptitude and greatness in any large organization.

Between civilian employees, the Post Office, and the armed forces, the federal government employs about 4 million people.  To paint all of them as incompetent based on personal impressions of a few of them does them a disservice.

Rather than looking pessimistically at a few examples of incompetence and say we shouldn't try, I look at the examples of things the government does well and say we can accomplish anything we want.

Rather than looking pessimistically at a few examples of incompetence and say we shouldn't try, I look at the examples of things the government does well and say we can accomplish anything we want.

Some people can't breathe for focusing only on the negative.   

Rather than looking pessimistically at a few examples of incompetence and say we shouldn't try, I look at the examples of things the government does well and say we can accomplish anything we want.

I'm just going to celebrate these, for all them are flawed but I am so thankful to have them.

My electricity in my apartment--provided and maintained by public wiring and by the US department of Energy
My clean water--local public water plumbing, met by the safety standards of the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Food and Drug Administration
My TV--FCC regulated, channels received by satelites built by NASA
My food--determined to be safe by the US department of agriculture and FDA
My medications--tested to be safe and regulated by the FDA
My money-- issued by the Federal Reserve
My car--inspected by local representatives of the Federal Department of Transportation, approved to be drivable by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The gas needed by my car--regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency
My drive to school and work--roads maintained and tested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials so they don't crack beneath me as I drive
My mail--I received by UCAS letters from the UK by the US postal service
My education--I attended public school from K-12 and along with my completion of state requirements I received my diploma
My safety--Local Police department for my local protection, the US Secret Service for protection of the elected officials I voted for, US Court System for protection of my rights, the US military for my protection here and abroad
My internet that I am currently using to post this--created by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Oh good lord, move ON and let the past go. Why must people live clinging to the past so??

Well in that case, why not make the same argument about private health insurance which is being condemned here?    You're slating insurance companies for taking premiums then yanking coverage on things, but when the NHS has done that it's just "Let the past go."   

And from an insiders point of view, that's what's needed to make a decent system work - a willingness by people to be flexible and to change the way they think. Just because it's there and it's free doesn't mean you should use it for every little thing. Culture change needs to happen big time if ANY "free at the point of use" system is going to work. The worried well need to stop clogging up GP offices asking for referrals for every little niggling worry and mothers need to stop asking for appointments for children who need Calpol or have nits. There are two basic, fundamental responsibilities here - on the people providing quality, affordable health care and on the people using it who need to take some responsibility for themselves as well.

On that, I agree.  But this is a basic problem with providing "free" services, which, of course, are not really free at all, since they are being paid for by taxes.  It's clear that people are being ridiculous when we hear stories from ambulance crews of being called out for a "serious injury," only to discover somebody with a minor cut which any normal person would have just cleaned up and stuck a Band-Aid on.  Or the other story which sticks in my mind of somebody calling 999 for an ambulance because she'd run out of cotton buds for the baby.      They're extreme examples, certainly, but I've known a few people who go running off to the doctor every time they get a few winter sniffles. 

Plus, the older people who remember it all being free ARE still getting it free

Not all.

Things change.  There are loads of things that weren't even possible -IVF, plastic surgery, cancer treatment, transplants, that weren't even POSSIBLE when the NHS started.  Are you saying that those things shouldn't be covered because they weren't laid out in the original plan? 

No, of course not.  But conversely, there are things provided by the NHS today which were not in its original remit, and to which many people do object: Trivial cosmetic surgery, abortion, "gender reassignment" surgery, etc.   I'm sure you'll try to defend those, of course.

It's also noteworthy to point out that when the NHS began, Great Britain was nearly bankrupt (and the NHS was a MUCH larger undertaking that what our administration is proposing).  The US is not in the financial situation that Great Britain was in 1948.  Arguments that 'this is not the time' for reform because of economics in the US are not fortified historically by that argument.

I do believe there is a fundamental difference in that in 1948 things were run more efficiently, perhaps especially so with the wartime ethic of just needing to "get it done, there's a war on" and "make do and mend" still fresh in the mind.  These days, everything the government touches gets bogged down in a mountain of red-tape, with far more bureaucracy and petty rules & regulations than existed 60 years ago.  And that goes for both the U.K. and the U.S.

My electricity in my apartment--provided and maintained by public wiring and by the US department of Energy

The Dept. of Energy might regulate things, but except for those towns which have municipally owned electrical utilities, the wiring, generating stations, and other infrastructure are provided and maintained by private organizations: PG&E, ConEd, The Podunk Rural Electrical Co-Op, etc.

My TV--FCC regulated, channels received by satelites built by NASA

The satellites are launched by NASA, but built by private companies, such as AT&T.   That's not to say that NASA doesn't do an excellent job.  I'd willingly see 20 worthless government departments scrapped to give NASA more support.

My money-- issued by the Federal Reserve

Largely fiat money today though.

No, of course not.  But conversely, there are things provided by the NHS today which were not in its original remit, and to which many people do object: Trivial cosmetic surgery, abortion, "gender reassignment" surgery, etc.   I'm sure you'll try to defend those, of course.

No, Paul I won't.  I won't get sucked in to yet another 'moral' debate with you.  

Your answer is that you think that the NHS should provide things that YOU approve of and not provide things that you don't.  You think that the NHS should stick to it's original remit AND provide things that couldn't even have been dreamed of in 1948. That's your right.  I don't agree but it's not worth the headache that a debate would bring.

But the discussion here is Healthcare Reform in the USA which is something that you seem to know little about and the discussion of the NHS is irrelevant really.  And to be fair it's not something that effects you or your family so there's no reason for you to be concerned.  A lot of people on this forum don't have that luxury.

I'm sorry it isn't 1955, which you seem to feel is the Golden Age that you missed out on.  But I have to live in the present.

These days, everything the government touches gets bogged down in a mountain of red-tape, with far more bureaucracy and petty rules & regulations than existed 60 years ago.  And that goes for both the U.K. and the U.S.

{later in the same post}

That's not to say that NASA doesn't do an excellent job.  I'd willingly see 20 worthless government departments scrapped to give NASA more support.

You're contradicting yourself in your own argument.  Everything the government touches gets bogged down, with the exception of the things that don't, like NASA?  It's impossible for the entire government to be completely useless, and therefore not to be trusted with health care, if the same government is also doing an "excellent job" with its programs in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.

You, JM, and JW like the government when it's doing what you want (exploring space, killing terrorists, or being run by Ronald Reagan), but you absolutely hate the government when it's doing something you don't want (allowing immigration, using diplomacy rather than force, or being run by a Democrat).

In truth, and in spite of the inflexibility of your moral judgement, the world is not black and white.  This is why I mostly don't listen to your arguments (or those of JM or JW).  Your answers to complex problems are too blunt and simple to work in the real world.

You, JM, and JW like the government when it's doing what you want (exploring space, killing terrorists, or being run by Ronald Reagan), but you absolutely hate the government when it's doing something you don't want (allowing immigration, using diplomacy rather than force, or being run by a Democrat).

I think this extends past just them three. Most people do this, willingly or not. How many Democrats/liberals/left-wingers in the US like the Iraq War, banning Plan B pills, etc? I don't think this part of the argument really helps the matters at hand as it runs very close to an ad hominem dismissal of others with differing views. It's perfectly fine for Paul, JM, and JW to have a different notion of what the government should and shouldn't do, to like what it's doing right (in their eyes), and to dislike what it's not doing right (in their eyes). The bigger issue (in general) is finding solutions to (insert problem of the month here) that are at least bearable by the majority of the various opinions running around. It is clear that a respectable amount of people absolutely hate HR 3200. It is the politicians' job(s) to figure out if that hate is based on real issues or ideological hatred of differing opinions. We can work with the former, we can't with the latter...and I don't think anyone in this thread has gone deep enough into the ideological line-toting state yet.

In truth, and in spite of the inflexibility of your moral judgement, the world is not black and white.  This is why I mostly don't listen to your arguments (or those of JM or JW).  

It's good to know that you dismiss people out of hand when they don't agree with you

I think this extends past just them three. Most people do this, willingly or not. How many Democrats/liberals/left-wingers in the US like the Iraq War, banning Plan B pills, etc? I don't think this part of the argument really helps the matters at hand as it runs very close to an ad hominem dismissal of others with differing views.

Imperli, we may not agree on certain issues, but thank you for this as it is very true.

It is clear that a respectable amount of people absolutely hate HR 3200. It is the politicians' job(s) to figure out if that hate is based on real issues or ideological hatred of differing opinions.

Very true this.

It's good to know that you dismiss people out of hand when they don't agree with you

You might want to read what I wrote again in its entirety.  I don't dismiss you because I disagree with you, I dismiss you because of the poor logic you use in your arguments.  For example, you start with the premise that the entire government is inept, and then use that foundation to make the argument that the government should not be allowed to administer a health care system.

Because it is impossible that every aspect of the government - all 4 million people across the entire scope of the federal government - is inept, the rest of your argument is invalid.

What I would hope is that you'd realize that viewing the world's problems in such stark terms eliminates the number of solutions available.  I'm guessing, though, from your increasing use of eye-rolling smileys, that that realization will not be forthcoming.  

You might want to read what I wrote again in its entirety.  I don't dismiss you because I disagree with you, I dismiss you because of the poor logic you use in your arguments.  

Yeah, whatever Carl . I did read what you wrote in it's entirety, and as you've stated, you dismiss my point of view out of hand. Good to know, so as not to waste my time responding to your posts in the future.

Yeah, whatever Carl . I did read what you wrote in it's entirety, and as you've stated, you dismiss my point of view out of hand. Good to know, so as not to waste my time responding to your posts in the future.

That eye-rolling smiley is getting a workout!  I dismiss your argument out of hand.  Firstly because it is invalid, and secondly because it cuts off too many avenues of exploration.  You won't entertain the notion that the government can run a health care program, or that the Democrats will come up with one you can support, which severely limits the number of possible results.  It's foolish to restrict your choices so narrowly and rigidly.

If you left open the possibility that the government might be able to efficiently administer a health care program, or the Democrats might propose something you could support, or President Obama might have some good ideas about reforming American health care, then I'd listen to you.

Because it is impossible that every aspect of the government - all 4 million people across the entire scope of the federal government - is inept, the rest of your argument is invalid.

Indeed, it's the equivalent standard of argument to claiming the private sector shouldn't be trusted to run anything because it's made such a pig's ear of the financial sector the last few years.

Indeed, it's the equivalent standard of argument to claiming the private sector shouldn't be trusted to run anything because it's made such a pig's ear of the financial sector the last few years.

I think we could very safely say that private sector health insurance has been made a pig's ear of in the last 8 years.

No, Paul I won't.  I won't get sucked in to yet another 'moral' debate with you.

Of course you won't, because you have no moral grounds for defending the things you do as "essential health care," which they clearly are not.   And isn't it such basic, essential health care with both the NHS and the various proposals in the U.S. are supposed to be about? 

You're contradicting yourself in your own argument.  Everything the government touches gets bogged down, with the exception of the things that don't, like NASA? 

Fair comment, that does sound very contradictory.  I think the key difference is the degree of autonomy and the nature of the staff employed in the different places - The difference between a large number of scientists and engineers, many of whom will have come from the private sector, versus a department which is almost entirely composed of people who have never been anything but paper-pushers in government offices and seem to have difficulty comprehending that the world doesn't revolve around their methods.