Thread: Ron Paul's vision fer old peoples and children...

Originally Posted by John Drake

I don't see anything here that indicates single payer doesn't work well, these are just different forms of it, that's all.

Single payer means government pays only. Canada and Britain are the only two true single-payer nations, with Britain being the most extreme, given that the entire system is government-run, from the hospitals to the doctors.

If private insurance is allowed to compete with the national system, then it's a multi-payer system.

Private insurance is more expensive, but its existence keeps the government honest. It wouldn't do politically for people fortunate enough to afford private insurance to outperform the system for the peons by a wide margin. Canada and Britain solve this problem by simply outlawing competition, although recently a Canadian court ruled that this violated human rights.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

It would be nice if the people criticising health care in other countries said if they had any experience of health care outside the US. When I look at a lot of the stories run in the US about the NHS I wonder if whoever wrote the article has ever stepped inside a hospital in the UK.

This argument comes up frequently, and it's invalid. People who died at the hands of the system don't get to come on discussion boards and tell us. The British press extensively covers the problems within the system, and health care experts have been citing the benefits and drawbacks of the British system, as well as every other country's system, for years. Is the press lying? Do the statistics lie? Perhaps the experts are all wrong? But if you prefer a British view:

Britons Say Health of NHS Failing

Kodos to all the above posters re Health insurance.

My posts are now as from the "cheshire cat"

Originally Posted by adaher

This argument comes up frequently, and it's invalid. People who died at the hands of the system don't get to come on discussion boards and tell us. The British press extensively covers the problems within the system, and health care experts have been citing the benefits and drawbacks of the British system, as well as every other country's system, for years. Is the press lying? Do the statistics lie? Perhaps the experts are all wrong? But if you prefer a British view:

Britons Say Health of NHS Failing

I think the difference is that the British want to keep the NHS and any talk of scrapping it would be political suicide even if they do moan about it as I'm not sure if you know this but Brits sure do love a good old moan. The government at the moment have been talking about changing it and they are being forced into a huge U-turn because people like the way the system is funded even if they have misgivings about how that money is sometimes managed. I honestly would give much credence to the British press as they just love making mountains out of mole hills and while I'm not saying the NHS is perfect but the way it's often talked about in the US bears no resemblance to the truth. Sure you can point out the failings but they are no more the norm than they are in the US.

I'm just saying it would be nice if more people who have had experience of both systems could tell us which they preferred.

I'm sorry to break this to you but we have private health care as well for those that feel the NHS is not enough.
Health insurance & Private Health Insurance with Bupa by You | Bupa UK

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

I think the difference is that the British want to keep the NHS and any talk of scrapping it would be political suicide even if they do moan about it as I'm not sure if you know this but Brits sure do love a good old moan. The government at the moment have been talking about changing it and they are being forced into a huge U-turn because people like the way the system is funded even if they have misgivings about how that money is sometimes managed. I honestly would give much credence to the British press as they just love making mountains out of mole hills and while I'm not saying the NHS is perfect but the way it's often talked about in the US bears no resemblance to the truth. Sure you can point out the failings but they are no more the norm than they are in the US.

I'm just saying it would be nice if more people who have had experience of both systems could tell us which they preferred.

Most people in Britain prefer the British system, no doubt. But inertia is a tough thing to overcome. Britain has one of the more antiquated systems. Continental European countries found a better way. Socialist propagandists do a good job of framing the choice between doing things the British way or the American way, but if Britain would simply do things the French way they'd be better off.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

I'm sorry to break this to you but we have private health care as well for those that feel the NHS is not enough.
Health insurance & Private Health Insurance with Bupa by You | Bupa UK

Supplemental insurance. And until recently the use of private health care jeopardized your ability to get care from the NHS.

Things can always be better I agree I just get annoyed when I hear talk of death panels or people waiting years for a simple operation as it would be like me claiming ER is a documentary about how understaffed all US hospitals are or how often you seem to have massive incidents conveniently close to a single major hospital. I do agree we are not a nation that embraces change in the health system with any speed.

Originally Posted by adaher

Supplemental insurance. And until recently the use of private health care jeopardized your ability to get care from the NHS.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you about care from the NHS being jeopardized if you have private health insurance as I'm almost definite hospitals are not allowed to ask if you have private care or not. As far as I know if you go into a hospital in the UK with a condition they will treat you regardless of private health insurance as you have paid for the service just like I have with my taxes.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Things can always be better I agree I just get annoyed when I hear talk of death panels or people waiting years for a simple operation as it would be like me claiming ER is a documentary about how understaffed all US hospitals are or how often you seem to have massive incidents conveniently close to a single major hospital. I do agree we are not a nation that embraces change in the health system with any speed.

Most Americans are very satisfied with their health care. that does not mean everything is peachy. The media isn't lying about American health care or British health care.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you about care from the NHS being jeopardized if you have private health insurance as I'm almost definite hospitals are not allowed to ask if you have private care or not. As far as I know if you go into a hospital in the UK with a condition they will treat you regardless of private health insurance as you have paid for the service just like I have with my taxes.

Apparently they called it "topping up", and supposedly it was a problem for a lot of British people:

NHS patients will be allowed to pay for private 'top up' care, says Alan Johnson - Telegraph

Under current rules, hospitals may withdraw treatment from patients who want to use their own money to buy drugs not available on the health service.

But Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, is preparing to announce that so-called top-up payments will be allowed.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Johnson said that he wanted a "fair system that doesn't deny people essential treatment unduly".

Concerns have been raised that such a move would create a two-tier health service where wealthy patients buy life saving treatments denied to those who cannot afford them.

However, Mr Johnson will ensure that the principle of free NHS care is maintained and will outline the necessary safeguards next month. He is also understood to be determined to stop people feeling pressurised into buying private drugs.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Yep Eisenhower was smart enough to grasp what any reasonably intelligent person will come to realize in about 5 minutes: If people can vote themselves money and benefits, they will and they will do anything to keep it. That of course does not make it RIGHT, it just makes it greedy human nature. Who the hell votes against themselves having a handout or for that matter just help (assuming the person actually needs it)? No one.

But honestly, Mr. Benjamin Franklin made roughly the same estimate a couple of hundred years before Eisenhower:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

What he left out is that the dependent on such money will not vote it out of existence willingly. Well, duh.

But when you can't afford it anymore, well that's a whole different ball game....

It would add to your argument if Ben Franklin really said that, but he didn't.

Please tell me HOW social security or Medicare is a handout? They are social insurance programs. If you smash up your car, do you consider the insurance company paying for the repairs a 'handout'?

It is sad the brainwashing that is going on in this country. Until recently, the word 'entitlement' referred to aristocrats. Aristocrats had titles, and they thought that they were thereby entitled to various things, particularly the deference of the common people.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

Sounds like a pretty worthless study to me because I am too intelligent to be fooled by people who try to use statistics to mislead.

Originally Posted by adaher

Most Americans are very satisfied with their health care. that does not mean everything is peachy. The media isn't lying about American health care or British health care.



Apparently they called it "topping up", and supposedly it was a problem for a lot of British people:

NHS patients will be allowed to pay for private 'top up' care, says Alan Johnson - Telegraph

Under current rules, hospitals may withdraw treatment from patients who want to use their own money to buy drugs not available on the health service.

But Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, is preparing to announce that so-called top-up payments will be allowed.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Johnson said that he wanted a "fair system that doesn't deny people essential treatment unduly".

Concerns have been raised that such a move would create a two-tier health service where wealthy patients buy life saving treatments denied to those who cannot afford them.

However, Mr Johnson will ensure that the principle of free NHS care is maintained and will outline the necessary safeguards next month. He is also understood to be determined to stop people feeling pressurised into buying private drugs.

I think the important word in that link is "May" as I find it hard to believe anyone would be denied service for having private medical insurance as it would be a PR nightmare. I also don't know what life saving treatments you think are denied people on the NHS as the only ones I can think of are where a particular drug is deemed overly expensive where others are can do the same job cheaper but that's the same with any system where money is not unlimited. I honestly think the NHS has been completely misrepresented in the US as part of a disinformation campaign by the health care industry who will make wild accusations about systems in other countries in a bid to keep the system in the US as it is.