America Does Need Healthcare Reforms

Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
But, as you should have heard me say enough by now, i don't agree with Obama's reforms.

I do not, however, oppose change for healthcare. Obama's reforms help a few people but they are far from universal. They also do not change much the system. If Obama ever gets his reforms through, healthcare will still be controlled by and for corporate profit. Millions of dollars of taxpayers money will still be paid into corporate coffers.

So, why don't i support Obama's reforms, if they do constitute a positive change? Because saying yes, is saying i'll compromise. I won't. The system must be changed.

The British NHS is not anything to do with Obama's plans. Would an American NHS be an improvement on the American system? YES. It's not perfect, but it's far better than the American system. Am i advocating the NHS? No. I want a community-owned and -run healthcare system.

I prefer the NHS to any other system so far, however. In Britain, there is universal health coverage, well as in America, there are 45 million uninsured people and 25 million are underinsured.

People in Britain do not have to wait 6 months for a dental appointment. The rumours i've heard are frankly ridiculous. The politician - an MEP - that made that small speech against the NHS has sparked huge controversy in Britain. David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party has said that he is absolutely in favour of the NHS and places his full support behind it. When he gets into power after the next General Election, he's promised to expand the NHS. He has said that the politician in question has somewhat "eccentric" views. Indeed, after the American attack on the NHS, within hours, hundreds of groups have organised, including one on the social networking site "Twitter" called "We Love The NHS". The NHS is extremely popular in Britain.

I believe the NHS to be a credit to democracy and provides universal healthcare. Also, it provides a basic structure that can thus be devolved to community, extragovernmental (meaning outside the Government) control. An American NHS would be "a good start".
 
Mar 2009
2,187
But, as you should have heard me say enough by now, i don't agree with Obama's reforms.

I do not, however, oppose change for healthcare. Obama's reforms help a few people but they are far from universal. They also do not change much the system. If Obama ever gets his reforms through, healthcare will still be controlled by and for corporate profit. Millions of dollars of taxpayers money will still be paid into corporate coffers.

So, why don't i support Obama's reforms, if they do constitute a positive change? Because saying yes, is saying i'll compromise. I won't. The system must be changed.

The British NHS is not anything to do with Obama's plans. Would an American NHS be an improvement on the American system? YES. It's not perfect, but it's far better than the American system. Am i advocating the NHS? No. I want a community-owned and -run healthcare system.

I prefer the NHS to any other system so far, however. In Britain, there is universal health coverage, well as in America, there are 45 million uninsured people and 25 million are underinsured.

People in Britain do not have to wait 6 months for a dental appointment. The rumours i've heard are frankly ridiculous. The politician - an MEP - that made that small speech against the NHS has sparked huge controversy in Britain. David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party has said that he is absolutely in favour of the NHS and places his full support behind it. When he gets into power after the next General Election, he's promised to expand the NHS. He has said that the politician in question has somewhat "eccentric" views. Indeed, after the American attack on the NHS, within hours, hundreds of groups have organised, including one on the social networking site "Twitter" called "We Love The NHS". The NHS is extremely popular in Britain.

I believe the NHS to be a credit to democracy and provides universal healthcare. Also, it provides a basic structure that can thus be devolved to community, extragovernmental (meaning outside the Government) control. An American NHS would be "a good start".
I like your views. And strangely enough I also support your suggestion for a community-owned and -run healthcare system.

I differ on your views about NHS though. I've heard complaints from many Brits about the system. The ones I heard were long line-ups for consultations, delays in getting surgery, standards of surgery, i.e. people being afraid to get operated on because of prevalence of infections in sub-standard post-operative care.

Where I further differ in general is that it is not logical to compare Brits with US as the two societies are completely different. In the UK there has always been state owned primary health care, whereas in the US most of primary health care is privately owned. The US cater for the rich, and one would have to change that first, before you can point to Canada and UK and say, why don't we have a system like that.

Further, I don't think much of Cameron. He is a people pleaser. I do like David Hannan as he at least has his own "views" and has thought out some solutions and more important, is not afraid to stand for what he believes in. The article below is a more balanced one I think of what was happening and I find it also rediculous that the Brits should feel they have to defend themselves in the US. Perhaps another way of political manouvring?
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/6035182/Health-row-Tory-Daniel-Hannan-Why-my-critics-are-wrong-about-the-NHS.html
 
Last edited:
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
I like your views. And strangely enough I also support your suggestion for a community-owned and -run healthcare system.
Careful there, you might be turning into a horrible, evil communist...

I differ on your views about NHS though. I've heard complaints from many Brits about the system. The ones I heard were long line-ups for consultations, delays in getting surgery, standards of surgery, i.e. people being afraid to get operated on because of prevalence of infections in sub-standard post-operative care.
I heard a story recently actually. True. From a friend. Someone went to have an operation. Their mother didn't trust the NHS and out of pure chance, they happened to be relatively wealthy. (That's lucky, not many people are). So, off they went to a private hospital. To cut a long story short, the doctor was underqualified and screwed up the operation.

There are just as bad complaints about the American system. And the NHS does provide quality medical care. The American system provides quality medical care for rich people. And frankly sub-standard medical care for the poor - who need it most. Surely, the universal nature of the NHS across socio-economic borders is something to be happy about. Decentralised and devolved to community level, this system would be next to flawless.

Where I further differ in general is that it is not logical to compare Brits with US as the two societies are completely different. In the UK there has always been state owned primary health care, whereas in the US most of primary health care is privately owned. The US cater for the rich, and one would have to change that first, before you can point to Canada and UK and say, why don't we have a system like that.
The UK has only had the NHS since the late 1940s. In the US, healthcare is not privately owned. It is corporately owned.

Chew on this: first, individuals pay obscene volumes of money to insurance companies, to provide them (often poor) cover for treatment/hospitalisation. As if this isn't enough, the US Government then riddles everyone with ridiculous amounts of tax. Huge and obscene sums are then paid by the Government to the insurance corporations (this is your money, remember?).

Compare this to the UK. Individuals do NOT have to pay any money to insurance companies but do have to pay tax. HOWEVER, the American Government pays more of your money to insurance corporations than the UK Government pays of their citizens' money into the NHS.

Your system costs more.

Further, I don't think much of Cameron. He is a people pleaser. I do like David Hannan as he at least has his own "views" and has thought out some solutions and more important, is not afraid to stand for what he believes in. The article below is a more balanced one I think of what was happening and I find it also rediculous that the Brits should feel they have to defend themselves in the US. Perhaps another way of political manouvring?
First of all, i'd like to point out that i think Cameron is an idiot and also that half the things he says are false promises. When the Conservative Party get in power, they will return to being the party of the ruling classes, of the bourgeoisie. But they won't get rid of the NHS. The People love the NHS. When Americans and David Hannan went on television, insulting the NHS, almost every British newspaper responded with a list of points of the fault of the American system. Hundreds of fan sites and twitter pageas, spacebook pages and myface pages (or whatever they're called), popped up instantaneously in support of the NHS. I saw one called "We Love The NHS". It had been alive for about two hours, had over a thousand members and was still growing. Destroying the NHS is political suicide.

Incidentally, isn't people-pleasing the entire point of democracy? They're there to represent the PEOPLE. Not their own stupid ideals. That is the entire basis of representative democracy. Not that the UK or US have an adequate system for implementing it.

That source is far from unbiased. That newspaper's nickname is the "Toryograph" because it is in support of the bourgeoisie. And even that article is more in support of the NHS.

But look, it's not about the NHS. The NHS can be improved, as we've agreed, by devolving to community level. Thus, no taxes, and it's supported by the community to provide free quality healthcare.

What it is about, is free, universal healthcare. You don't need an NHS for that. But there does need to be something. It doesn't need to be state-supported but it most certainly cannot be corporate. Community healthcare would be ideal, in my opinion. But every developed country in the world has a system to support the poorest of proletarians in getting the healthcare they require. Thus making their healthcare system universal. EXCEPT FOR THE UNITED STATES. You cannot condemn millions of uninsured human beings, citizens of your own country, to DEATH because you're all right-wing crazies.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2009
2,187
But, as you should have heard me say enough by now, i don't agree with Obama's reforms.

I do not, however, oppose change for healthcare. Obama's reforms help a few people but they are far from universal.
The thing is, if the Obama reforms were approved, it may create more lasting damage than good. As far as I can see in the short-term it may help a few people, in the long-term, it may create lasting damage in terms of money that the Government does not have. Government is notorious for not being able to manage money well. So especially in the US, where the healthcare is mostly in the hands of private industry anyway, Government should be kept out of it, rather than taking control, and messing up everything more than it has been messed up already.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
The thing is, if the Obama reforms were approved, it may create more lasting damage than good. As far as I can see in the short-term it may help a few people, in the long-term, it may create lasting damage in terms of money that the Government does not have. Government is notorious for not being able to manage money well. So especially in the US, where the healthcare is mostly in the hands of private industry anyway, Government should be kept out of it, rather than taking control, and messing up everything more than it has been messed up already.
Let me rephrase.

I agree that Government is best kept out of it.

However, if you compare Medicare/Medicaid to private healthcare, the former is actually more efficient and less costly to the taxpayer, both subjectively and objectively.

A tiny part of Obama's plan is to extend Medicare/Medicaid. All the rest is paying more taxpayers money to Insurance Industries.

Thus, i believe that it's best to keep Government and Insurance Corporations from dominating the individual's life.

Personally, i do not think that an individual's health should morally be seen as a market opportunity, or an invitation for capitalist greed. That's why i see a community owned, free, universal, healthcare system would be best.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
Let me rephrase.

I agree that Government is best kept out of it.

However, if you compare Medicare/Medicaid to private healthcare, the former is actually more efficient and less costly to the taxpayer, both subjectively and objectively.
Can't agree. Government already has Medical Care for those in the category who cannot afford it, and from reports it would appear that Government is really bad at it.
The Cato Institute argues that health care is the most heavily regulated industry in the United States.A study published by the Cato Institute suggests that this regulation provides benefits in the amount of $170 billion but costs the public up to $340 billion. The study concluded that the majority of the cost differential arises from medical malpractice, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, and facilities regulations. Part of the cost is attributed to regulatory requirements that prevent technicians without medical degrees from performing treatment and diagnostic procedures that carry little risk.[
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
Can't agree. Government already has Medical Care for those in the category who cannot afford it, and from reports it would appear that Government is really bad at it.
I didn't say they were good at it. I said they were better at it. :p

And Government has partial medical care for those that can't afford it.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
I found an interesting editorial in the New York Times focussing on who gets to benefit most with getting health insurance for all by Bob Herbert:
Insurance companies are delighted with the way ?reform? is unfolding. Think of it: The government is planning to require most uninsured Americans to buy health coverage. Millions of young and healthy individuals will be herded into the industry?s welcoming arms. This is the population the insurers drool over.

This additional business ? a gold mine ? will more than offset the cost of important new regulations that, among other things, will prevent insurers from denying coverage to applicants with pre-existing conditions or imposing lifetime limits on benefits. Poor people will either be funneled into Medicaid, which will have its eligibility ceiling raised, or will receive a government subsidy to help with the purchase of private insurance.

If the oldest and sickest are on Medicare, and the poorest are on Medicaid, and the young and the healthy are required to purchase private insurance without the option of a competing government-run plan ? well, that?s reform the insurance companies can believe in.

And then there are the drug companies. A couple of months ago the Obama administration made a secret and extremely troubling deal with the drug industry?s lobbying arm, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The lobby agreed to contribute $80 billion in savings over 10 years and to sponsor a multimillion-dollar ad campaign in support of health care reform.

The White House, for its part, agreed not to seek additional savings from
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/opinion/18herbert.html?_r=1