• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

Oh, and another thing we're getting from that article. The decent healthcare plans are paying out only around 75% of their take. In other words, 25% of all the money spent on health insurance goes straight into the pockets of the insurance companies to pay their staff and overheads.

Great system that. Real good value for money. :nope:

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
I am not making the argument that government is to provide health-care for its citizens. The advocates of socialism are. Now if the reasoning to provide health-care to all is an emotional desire; as evidenced by the arguments against the current American system, to provide as need demands, than the former colonies of an empire from which it derived its wealth must logically be accounted for in the equation. As such the health-care provided for by the NHS is payed for by neglecting the health-care of its former colonies, many of which it left ravaged and impoverished.


BTW, there are no winners or losers on this forum. There are those who parrot the propaganda which allows them to feel better about the fact that their circumstance was built on the rape of the world.
 
jimbob said:
Canada manages a universal healthcare system.

American defence of Europpe was self-interested.
Click to expand...

Why America defends both Europe and Canada is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that Europe and Canada has spent its wealth on social programs payed for with wealth which they would not have had had America not spent its wealth defending them.
 
jimbob said:
I am confused.

Firstly I do not see what the relevance a discussion about the origin of the wealth of the US and the UK has to do with the fact that the US government provides healthcare for about 37-million citizens, whilst a similar proportion of GDP, provides coverage for 60-million UK citizens. And this is from a population of 60-million and not 301-million.
Click to expand...

Because the argument keeps being made about this person or that person under the American system not having health-care. If this argument is to have validity it must also be applied to the opposing system.


My argument is that meidcaid is expensive, and ineffective compared to many examples of universal healthcare. What does this digression have to do with the effecacy of medicaid?
Click to expand...

I am confused as to why you keep coming back to the Medicaid vs universal care comparison. I have stated that the Medicaid system sucks. I have stated that I do not want more of a system which sucks.

The British Empire brought wealth to the UK that should be spread around the commonwealth. American wealth arose in a fundamentally different fashion, and thus is 100% "clean". Britain should have paid the US for military aid it received during World War II (which it did). Europe should have contributed to the defence of Europe (maybe by taking part in a North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, or "NATA").
Click to expand...

Socialist are the most ungrateful breed of human I have ever dealt with.

Should not America be payed, with interest, for its defense of Europe and Canada over the last 60 years? America is the worst empire in the history of the world. She pays tribute to its protectorates as opposed to what a natural empire does.
 
Rolfe said:
Oh, and another thing we're getting from that article. The decent healthcare plans are paying out only around 75% of their take. In other words, 25% of all the money spent on health insurance goes straight into the pockets of the insurance companies to pay their staff and overheads.

Great system that. Real good value for money. :nope:

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Being that the US per capita income is 20% higher than the UK, people in America can afford to purchase their own health-care. Americans, generally, do not need government to purchase it for them. In America most people are adults which can make choices all on their own without the need of a Queen to take care of them.
 
Is Jerome actully going mad before our very eyes? Or is he seeing how obvious he can make his trolls and still get people to provide serious responses?
YOU DECIDE!
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am not making the argument that government is to provide health-care for its citizens. The advocates of socialism are. Now if the reasoning to provide health-care to all is an emotional desire; as evidenced by the arguments against the current American system, to provide as need demands, than the former colonies of an empire from which it derived its wealth must logically be accounted for in the equation. As such the health-care provided for by the NHS is payed for by neglecting the health-care of its former colonies, many of which it left ravaged and impoverished.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that you continue to suggest that we're funding the NHS off of an empire which we gave up 60 years ago; have you checked the date of the Opium Wars yet, btw? Where have we been stashing all that loot?

Turning to your points regarding socialism, you'll find that in Europe even the right-wing parties such as the Conservatives (see Rolfe's Margaret Thatcher link, above) support universal health care. It's not socialism, but rather social responsibility.

At the end of the day it comes to this. No-one in the UK forgoes healthcare or suffers cripplings costs arising therefrom regardless of income, social position, past health history, or employment.

Let me make that simple for you.

NO-ONE.

The quality of treatment is on a par with anything you have in the US.

A society is judged on how it looks after those who cannot look after themselves. You have admitted that Medicare and it's equivalents "suck" but have wholly failed to bring forward any comparable safety net or workable solution.


There are those who parrot the propaganda which allows them to feel better about the fact that their circumstance was built on the rape of the world.
Click to expand...

You know, all the Europeans here have resisted the temptation to go off on a retalitory post or two regarding US economic policy abroad. That's because we've not lost the argument. So keep on topic son, and stick in at school.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Being that the US per capita income is 20% higher than the UK, people in America can afford to purchase their own health-care. Americans, generally, do not need government to purchase it for them. In America most people are adults which can make choices all on their own without the need of a Queen to take care of them.
Click to expand...

You do realise that what you're suggesting is that it's acceptable for you to pay more for a lesser service because you've got more cash, don't you? I mean, you really think that such a position would make sense?

You've also failed to respond to the points regarding the sizeable proportion of your population who apparently slip through your safety net for whatever reason, a situation which just doesn't happen in Canada, Europe, Oz, and NZ. Why is this?

And what's Her Maj got to do with it?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Should not America be payed, with interest, for its defense of Europe and Canada over the last 60 years? America is the worst empire in the history of the world. She pays tribute to its protectorates as opposed to what a natural empire does.
Click to expand...

Lend-lease. Take a look and see how much we gave you.

25,000 UK troops in Germany for 60 years, facing east, side by side with the US.

Independent nuclear deterrent for 50-odd years; we don't hide under your umbrella.

Free use of airbases in the UK for forward deployment. Thus making much of East Anglia and the South of Englandshire an even bigger nuclear target. And don't start me on the Holy Loch.

Free use of Diago Garcia, much to the chagrin of the poor British Subjects who previously lived there. Who we're now having to pay wads of compensation too. Not a lot of help from your Government, either.

Unstinting (misplaced, but unstinting) support for US-led wars in theatres such as Iraq including the deployment of British troops in frontline positions during the invasion(s).

Really, son, try sticking to the topic at hand instead of diverting attention away from your inability to argue your corner. If you want to cover these issues then start a seperate thread. And preferrably do a bit of research too.
 
Jerome, are you still claiming that if one allowed a full unfettered free-market, nobody would be unable to afford healthcare?

Plese explain why in detail, my calculations as to the costs of healthcare are anything other than gross underestimates.

ETA: for example in this post

ETA2: Anyone else's estimates that could be more realistic would be welcome...
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Why America defends both Europe and Canada is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that Europe and Canada has spent its wealth on social programs payed for with wealth which they would not have had had America not spent its wealth defending them.
Click to expand...

This strikes me as another of those very, very deep cultural differences which are probably insurmountable. You see, I do not believe we need protection. Not at any time since the last war. It is laughable to imagine that the russians were going to invade us, or whatever it is you think you were protecting us from. The US did this for its own reasons and it was neither necessary nor even sane IMO.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Being that the US per capita income is 20% higher than the UK, people in America can afford to purchase their own health-care. Americans, generally, do not need government to purchase it for them. In America most people are adults which can make choices all on their own without the need of a Queen to take care of them.
Click to expand...

And what about the people in the US on $7/hour?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Why America defends both Europe and Canada is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that Europe and Canada has spent its wealth on social programs payed for with wealth which they would not have had had America not spent its wealth defending them.
Click to expand...

Yet the USA if it adopted similar systems to Canada and some European countries could for the same amount of money it is spending now have a universal system that would actually be among the best medical systems in the world (if not the best).

This is not a matter that the USA can't afford to do what Canada and some European countries do because it is "protecting those countries" but that it choses to spend the its money less efficiently in regards to health-care than Canada and some European countries.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Being that the US per capita income is 20% higher than the UK, people in America can afford to purchase their own health-care. Americans, generally, do not need government to purchase it for them. In America most people are adults which can make choices all on their own without the need of a Queen to take care of them.
Click to expand...


Darat and Architect, we must stop letting the the queen decide our Fêtes.


(Actually, opening our fates is one task that the queen is good for).
 
jimbob said:
Darat and Architect, we must stop letting the the queen decide our Fêtes.


(Actually, opening our fates is one task that the queen is good for).
Click to expand...

I'm oppressed, I am. See that Duke of Edinburgh, NWO overlord, sheesh I dunno.....




....what's that knock at the door?



:rolleyes:
 
jimbob said:
Darat and Architect, we must stop letting the the queen decide our Fêtes.


(Actually, opening our fates is one task that the queen is good for).
Click to expand...

She isn't even good for that - this is a woman who has probably made more public speeches than anyone else on the planet over the last 65 years yet is still crap at it!

(Psst if no one hears from me I have obviously been imprisoned in the Tower for saying something bad about our "leader"... )
 
Darat said:
She isn't even good for that - this is a woman who has probably made more public speeches than anyone else on the planet over the last 65 years yet is still crap at it!

(Psst if no one hears from me I have obviously been imprisoned in the Tower for saying something bad about our "leader"... )
Click to expand...

OK, maybe I should have said "might be good for".

Anyway, we shouldn't be too hard on someone who has a "family net" instead of "family tree"....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom