Socialized Medicine Nightmare in Britain - USA Beware

[6112003]

What a bunch of disingenuous morons. The bottom line is that the alternative proposed by the US right-wing - go to private health companies - is just as available in the UK as in the US. So the individuals in this video could go private if they have £x,ooo lying about. So the insinuation that the US system is better is complete bollocks.

[genYprogressive83]

I grew up in the NHS you asstards are full of shit.

[Dendiol]

What utter crap.

[britainmalbangkok]

It is worse in America than Britain.

[SammyClammy]

Or you can live in a nation that has a glorious free market system and receive absolutely no treatment at all.

[lilyiscute1]

Swiss health care is far superior to the NHS. It has options for those willing to pay a little more while everyone has a high quality basic care.

[DRDFOX]

@lilyiscute1 It's exactally the same in the UK, you have the NHS and if you want bells and whistles (which isn't necessary in a lot of cases) you have private healthcare and private healthcare insurance options. Whether the Swiss basic care is better than the I don't know, but if it was perfect then there wouldn't be a demand for private options QED. THe NHS conduct nearly 14 million hospital treatments each year. It takes a miniscual percentage of mishaps to fill a website of horror stories

[jordler]

in america you would not get if you dont have the cash so i dont see the point in this video.

[beretboy22]

If he had a pre-existing condition, in the USA, he might not have the insurance in the first place. 

[cpmc1]

The Brittish health care system, in my opinion, is excellent. You may pay for treatment yourself, but if you can not afford it, you may have to wait longer (and risk not getting a highly expensive drug that you) and get it for free. This is a mutually beneficial system, those who can pay get their treatment very soon and garanteed, those who can not get seen quicker, because those who paid are no longer in the waiting line. It's also more sustainable for the government.

[williamwilson666]

America is not a civilized country. The people in this film would have long been cast side and derided for "not being smart enough" to afford "real" healthcare in corporate fascist America. Almost everyone in the UK is embarrassed by the disingenuity of this film.

[MsZeitgeist85]

This is video a crock of shit.

[ghosttown999]

The man is not even being refused treatment, he's being given a slightly less effective drug, much more than what an uninsured American would get, and many insured ones too.

[FRSFreeStateES]

Here's another example of why America will never have a british or canadian style Health Care system. Here are Socialized Health Care systems that don't always provide Health Care to their citizens who need it.

[scottishlad1987]

well what exactly is america doing for people in his situation that cant afford to have private healthcare?

[DaMarsBar]

Throughout my entire life I have used the nhs once, when I was born, and I still think the nhs is the best Damn healthcare system in the entire world. It sounds strict, but the balance must be made.

[kevinkards1]

he would not get it in the usa experimental so fuck the usa taking a swipe at the nhs

[YourTubeSpellChecker]

The NHS has problems, but I'd wager that about 90% of British people support its existance, and all the main political parties agree. It is better than the American system, fact. When people die on the NHS they die because of their illness, not because of their bank balance.

[DaMarsBar]

@YourTubeSpellChecker more than 90% more like 99%.

[R0undAboutMidnight]

I'm British and this is complete bullshit. You Americans will believe anything a news report will tell you.

[1dschamp]

@R0undAboutMidnight That's how they're controlled. When people in America get the idea that their healthcare system is a disaster, this suddenly appears on TV.

[6112003]

@R0undAboutMidnight True true - absolute crap.

[latech1116]

This is about life, GOD's creation, and treating human beings with love, compassion, and respect. What if this were your Wife, you Mother, Daughter?? JESUS will address these discrepancies, let me assure you, HE will. I hear HIS footsteps, proximity------->today? tomorrow? next week? Very very close.

[TrackAttackerUK]

oh dear, propaganda alert!

[account18uk]

we get free healthcare and if we're not happy with it we can go private as well. if the guy wants to buy extra drugs he can do that. if you dont stoump up the cash in america you dont get ANYTHING so the guy should feel himself lucky.

[captaindiesalot]

account:

You're a fool. In America, ANYONE, including total illegals, can go to an emergency room at any hospital and get service, regardless at to ability to pay.

Your system is going broke, and killing people, but hey, your life expectancy is longer than ours. Wow! Great system.

[hartmut1164]

There is a difference between emergency and treatment.

No does deny private treatment to anyone within the UK, if he can pay or his private insurance company (like in the U.S.A.). Treatment is free only if you use the NHS (National Health Service) - interestingly very few use private treatment.

NHS-bashing is one of Britain's preferred pastimes, but at the end the system does deliver, even with one of the lowest budgets of western industrialized countries, quite well.

[captaindiesalot]

hart:

Here, in the US, hospitals MUST accept people for emergency treatment, regardless as to ability to pay. The entire system is skewed, BECAUSE of government. And you're not getting away with trying to tell me the GB's system is good. There's a lot of English ex-patriots here, and they all say your system sucks. Hey, ENJOY it, but don't expect us to calmly stand by and watch them complete the destruction of our medical care...they've done enough damage as it is.

[hartmut1164]

But no US-hospital is obliged by law to treat an HIV, HEP or cancer patient for free. The NHS is by law.

The UK-system is not perfect, but it does its job - and much more cost effective than the most other systems (including the US and other EU countries).

---

But: Anyone is to use private services or to go, under certain circumstances, for free treatment in an other EU-country (those right are extended with the decision of the EU-council and parliament in summer 2009 with effect of Mai 2010)

[captaindiesalot]

Hart:

You are another Canadian Socialist Fool, and one of the reasons you're nation has become full of nothing but women.

If you show up to an emergency room, you get treated, that's it.

[hartmut1164]

Canada is, like the UK or any EU/EAA country a capitalist country.

I think you may look up the definition of "socialism", in which the mean of production are held in any form of common property.

A social security system, including health care for all, is a means of running a capitalist system more smoothly, by providing a social coherence to avoid tensions (and in the social unrest). This is the reason why in Europe even conservative politicians are in favour of such systems.

[hartmut1164]

At end it is about money: With a generous social security system you need less police and less prisons: It is just cheaper and makes the society a safer place - including the wealthy and the real rich ones.

[captaindiesalot]

hart:

Don't try to sell me this bullshit, I studied economics at a decent school, here in the US. It might have been taught by a college professor who was interested in his published work than teaching, but NO WHERE does any economic school teach that Government Intervention isn't some form of Socialist intervention. The whole idea of Free Market Capitalism, is NO Government intervention, except enforcement of contracts.

Where there is government, there is socialism.

[hartmut1164]

You can't separate the development of the modern state from the development of the capitalist system: Starting with state-sponsored banks and exchanges in the Italian city states and German Free Cities, going further with intervention of the Tudors by freeing church property for private ownership, the state sponsored first stock companies, the state privileged water ways and railway lines of 18th & 19th century, etc. pp.

Even the development of the modern wealth-fare state in Europe was (...)

[hartmut1164]

the product of a complex interaction of free markets and state.

Such a "Free Market Capitalism" never existed and it is unlikely that it will ever exist. State and capitalism exist in complex dialectic relation, each one interacting with the other one and able to separate. Your point of view is as simplistic as the classic Marxist one, which defines the state as the "administrative committee" of bourgeoisie (but the other way around). The reality is much more complex.

[hartmut1164]

May you just ignore any economic school "left" of the Chicago School? Or do you call John Maynard Keynes a "socialist"?

[captaindiesalot]

hart:

I'm in the Von Mises school. Keynes was a socialist. Why put it in quotes...if the people don't spend their money, then the government must spend the money (the government is the people, so...)

As I said, anything that the state does to infringe upon free markets in order to manipulate one group over another, is Socialism. You take from the producers and give to the consumers. What is your problem? you like government intervention, you want to call it something else? Fine.

[captaindiesalot]

Hart:

The whole idea about the United States was that the individual has rights that others cannot infringe upon. It was the perfect political system for Free Market Capitalism to develop, and it did for a number of years with minimal intervention. With the advent of the computer age, government intervention should have lessened for a number of reasons, but the opposite is true. That's because Gov't's are about POWER not individual Rights, and Free Markets.

[hartmut1164]

The reason is quite different: If the government does not provide for the looser of capitalism some decent living conditions, than they will go on the street - and no one can predict the results. No one knows how will pick the power in such a situation. There are enough Lenin, Saint-Just hiding and waiting. We shall not give those a chance.

Therefore conservative people like Bismark or Adenauer or de Gaulle were keen to uphold social security.

[hartmut1164]

The US were an exception - if you are "new" country, in which government structures and society is in the process of being formed, things are different.

Above a certain stage of development of society upholding the peace in society is an issue which must involve a complex interaction and coordination of the government, law makers, free enterprise, social groups and alike - on local, national and international level - informal and formal.

[captaindiesalot]

hart:

The reason we're so dominate in the world is because the Capitalist System is so efficient at creating wealth. Our poor people live better than most other nation's middle class, and by all measurements, have better standards of living than European or Asian middle class.

Your argument fails on too many levels to list here on YT, but the facts speak for themselves. In America most poor people own a car and have more than on TV, etc.

[captaindiesalot]

hart:

You see, this is the justification used to destroy Free Market Capitalism. More commonly referred to Fascism. The Government steps in to "provide" for those "left behind." Yet, the private sector is more than able to "care" for these people via charitable organizations that are outside of government, making government, which is always less efficient, obsolete. However, for Fascist-Socialists like you, the argument is that ONLY the gov't can provide for people. This is Bull Shit.

[hartmut1164]

1) The poor: In Germany the payment for anyone without any other income by the government is €359 p.m. and (typically) €360 for rent: This accumulates to €8628 p.a. or roughly $12.675. This includes free health care via the public insurance.

According to US-statistics roughly 38 Mio. US-citizen live below the poverty rate of $10.830. In other words: Those 13% of the US-population would better off living in Germany by wealth-fare.

[hartmut1164]

2) Private Charity:

It just doesn't work - we had this in Europe prior the introduction of state run systems. It failed - because of this failure Elizabeth I had to introduce her Poor Laws, Bismark in 1882 public health insurance in Germany or the NHS in Britain in 1947.

It was in democratic times the will of the people demanding such systems, because they see a minimum standard of living as a human right, like the right of property. If a government does provide this - it be topped

[hartmut1164]

Finally:

You remind me, with your Capitalist Utopia very much on the orthodox Marxist with their Communist Paradise.

But: Society do not follow dogmas, but are complex interacting system. Imposing one "pure" ideology will always fail. History is full of such examples. The right way is, as history teaches over centuries, between the extremes: Capitalism and state intervention, private property and social services for all.

[captaindiesalot]

Hart;

You're an idiot. You use a static number to say that the poor in Germany are better than here, and yet, you leave the dynamic of movement from poor to middle class to wealth out of the discussion. The issue is NOT the actual dollar amount of support, but the ABILITY to move beyond outside support toward independence of a handout. America is MUCH BETTER than any other nation in the world.

However, ideas like yours endanger this ability.

[captaindiesalot]

European experience, where people like you get to vote, lead me to the conclusion that history is against you. As long as you believe what you do, your dogmatic faith in government will result in your destruction. Indeed, this is happening right now, as immigration of non-Europeans into Europe has placed all of Europe in danger of its own final solution. You're a fool, and completely self-destructive. I am laughing at your intellectual superiority.

[hartmut1164]

The highest social mobility can be found in Scandinavian countries, mostly attributed to an excellent state-run education system. I do not say that state-run education must be by definition excellent, nor I do say that private education is. It depends on the circumstances of societies and other factors.

Again: Reality is complex.

[hartmut1164]

I do not have "dogmatic faith in government", nor I do have a dogmatic faith in "free enterprise": Both is needed to run societies successful - low crime, low poverty rate, a general peaceful society with the right mixture of freedom and security can be archived in a constant coordination of all force in society: Free enterprise and trade union, the state and social groups, incl. political parties, must work together, define goals and common interests in a constant process to find consensus.

[hartmut1164]

A word about:

I live on the Great Continent, a continent which survived the religious splits and war of 16th and 17th century, including the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars and Two World Wars, we saw in our history more states toppled than the US had presidents and than you say that some immigrants "placed all of Europe in danger" and are imposing a "final solution".

Get the facts right.

[hartmut1164]

Perhaps a final remark:

Your state of mind reminds me when I was younger and at university were a lot of students around, how read a bit of Marx (or even Lenin) and thought they have now the key for the solution of all problems. The sole difference to is the fact that they saw the solutions in Marxist dogma, whilst you uphold a free market dogma.

In both cases barely based on facts and hard numbers, but as an "Article of Faith". Such articles may be fine to run a church, but not society.

[raemay18]

NW18g,

I read that your family has recieved good health care what about Canada video on here where aelderly couple said her husband was diagnosed with brain tumor and they would see him for months to get an MRI so he had to fly to the states and get a MRI and they said he wouldnt be operated on for 8-months when you have a huge brain tumor in your head and the government says wait eights months that is horriable.

I think that your family was fortunate or lucky to be seen so soon.

[mw18g]

i cant speak for the couple in canada because i dont know them. but there are a few medical horror stories/blunders in every country.

these are often made to seem commonplace by people to support their arguments

seeing as it happened to my mum twice in different parts of the country i doubt its a fluke.

under a private system my dad would have bankrupted himself paying for my uncles medical bills, and might have not have set up his own successful business because of high insurance costs.

[hartmut1164]

I can't talk about Canada, but in Britain, according to a decision of the EU-Court in Luxembourg anyone is entitled to seek in such cases treatment in an other country on the the expenses of the NHS.

Perhaps it would be the best Canada enters the EU ;-)

[captaindiesalot]

@hartmut1164

Hey, you want socialism, fine. Leave us out of it, we have done well with what little amount of Capitalism we have left...if we could reverse all this socialist-fascist control by the central government, we'd pick up where we left off, and start growing again. You keep your system, we'll keep ours. After the Muslims over-run Europe, it will no longer matter to you anyway.

[hartmut1164]

The EU has no central government - the EU is governed by a complex system of commission, EU-parliament, EU-court, national governments and national parliaments (and even regions), leading to a nearly mind-blowing complex system of decision making.

You create in your mind a monster called "EU Central Government", which just does not exist in reality.

[captaindiesalot]

@hartmut1164

First, the EU has TRIED to force a new government on Europeans...who, to a certain extent, are starting to finally wise up to the fact that this would become one more drag on their personal freedoms with higher taxation costs.

Second, I've seen much of Europe, and remain convinced of it's beauty, and unconvinced of the control the government exerts over its citizenry. You don't even realize it, and I don't want to end up living in a nation that has the same level of control.

[hartmut1164]

Taxes: The EU takes 1% of the VAT for its expenses and the revenue customs duties. All other taxes go into the national or regional budges.

If you talk about the Constitutional Treaty: Even this treaty would be just an international treaty of sovereign states. Besides this formal fact, the EU is not a "Westphalian" state, neither it is an international organization, like the Postal Union. It is in very nature a new creation, closer to the structures of the Holy Roman Empire (964-1806) than ...

[hartmut1164]

to anything new. Prof. Zielonka of Oxford coined the term "neo medieval" as structure of different layers and circles of influence and power without the attributes of a state, as defined 1648: Clear borders, army, police etc. To understand the EU you need understand that the nation state is recent creation with its beginning in 16th century (Francois I of France and Henry VII as forerunners) and that other structure of government did also exist: The EU is one of those.

[captaindiesalot]

@hartmut1164

Look I understand the nature of the beast, and I understand where the Nation-State came from. I also understand what nation rejected Divine Right, first. (After England re-established the Monarchy) It was this little Colony.

Why? Because we didn't like taxation. It's that simple. Now, the EU has the ability to negotiate law for the rest of the EU membership. Sometimes, as in the nature of lowering all trade barriers, this can be good...but sometimes this can be very bad...

[hartmut1164]

Again: Bring your history in right order. It was the "divine right" of king how created the nation state. What we call today "nation" is the result of the brutal suppression of feudal forces.

Previous system didn't a "divine" right of king. In the Holy Roman Empire Adolf von Nassau (1296) and Wenzel (1400) were disposed in formal trail. The power of the king of Emperor was limited by the Imperial Dial, an independent court, the Imperial Chamber Court and layers of government not relying on him.

[hartmut1164]

Any law of the EU has to be passed by of Council of Minister, after hearing the opinions of the national parliament, and has has to passed the European Parliament. You need a wide consensus for EU-law making.

The exact way to implement those law and execution is matter of nation state or the regions. If the Commission thinks that a nation is breach of this law the commission had to appeal to the the EU-Court to get a judgment against this particular state.

Read the treaties!

[kim8040]

@hartmut1164 Hell with 85 Sharia law courts in the UK now - who the hell knows what the UK idiots are doing now!

[captaindiesalot]

@hartmut1164

We don't need the EU's structure. The "global warming" nonsense is one area in which we totally reject the assumptions of "science."

[hartmut1164]

I don't what the structure of the EU has to do with Global Warming: The EU is a long term project, outlined at the first post-war time at the congress of christian democrats in The Hague 1948, than in the Schuman Declaration of 1950 and consequently adopted and developed further.

At this time Global Warning was unknown.

[Fitedaman]

All you need to say is the fact the UK has a larger life expectancy than the US and i think the NHS plays its part in that. Also there is still other private healthcare options available such as bupa. Plus all the stuff about the elderly not gettin treated is lies. The NHS provides a system which means the poorest can get healthcare but it also means other forms of private healthcare is also available if you want to pay for it

[GavinA74]

He probably wouldn't get funded by insurance firms either.

[pawtucket999]

Logan's Run meets Soylent Green.

[hauskalainen]

Would you spend 30 000 euros to prolong your life by a few months? And derprive your kids perhaps of an ineritance? Its not so easy.

If you don't like the NICE cut-off (which ought to apply to everyone, just to be fair) then take out extra insurance! No one is stopping you.

We DO have to consider how to distribute finite resources. This is the BEST way to do it, not the WORST!

[matthias4085]

Its the person's choice, if he wants to spend that money(which is his and that he earned himself) to prolong his life who are you or the government to decide he can't?

[AdamqK]

And the alternative is the current US system, which is unaffordable to many. At least here you get treated like a human being rather than something to be milked for as much money as possible, your actual health the last thing on the good doctor's mind. This is propoganda of the lowest kind put out by people who have been doing the milking. Health insurance? No? No money for them to take? Then you die.

[matthias4085]

Actually you know nothing of the US system.... All hospital must treat you in an emergency regardless if you have health insurance or not. So if your dying you will be treated.

[AdamqK]

Gee, I guess all those years I spent in the States were a dream, then? Or the US friend I have who contracted MS and got dropped like a hot brick by their insurance company so that her husband had to work two jobs just to afford the drugs the doctors wanted to pump her full of? Actually, I've had a first hand taste of both systems, thanks, and while the NHS has its faults, there is no contest. Choose life.

[matthias4085]

Difference is your friend was able to pay for those drugs, wasn't he? it's not like the government told your friend no, you can't have those drugs seeing as the costs outweigh the benefits...

[AdamqK]

"Able to pay for the drugs"? At a cost to his own sanity and well being.  As he was a Brit, they came back the UK, where she gets treated like a human being rather than a source of revenue.

Treated like a human being....hmmm, I can see why people would be afraid of that.

[matthias4085]

Source of revenue? in case you didn't realize most hospitals operate as non profit organizations... so please tell me how they are treated as revenue?

[AdamqK]

Personally, I think that the patient should be considered first and not just pumped full of whatever drugs the rep is pushing that day. I had the same experience in the States ("Here, have this massively expensive drug. Didn't work? Well, have another") and so did my friend. Treating the illness in any way wasn't the point: it was just making money. A little paliative care goes a long way and can reap long term benefits all around.

[matthias4085]

All the drugs are approved by the FDA, they go through clinical trials. Which basically are trials showing that the drugs work better that their placebo counterparts. In the end this means that the drugs don't work for everyone but on average work for more people the than the placebo. This is why sometimes people need to try 3 of 4 drugs before they find one that works for them. I'm curious to know how they do it differently in the UK?

[matthias4085]

With that said I don't like how drugs are being pushed on doctors by reps either, there are many short comings to this type of system (which can be fixed by having the FDA regulate the distribution of these drugs) but lets pretend you can't fix it, you must admit there are just as many short comings in the socialized system. In the end the issue for me is, does the government have the right to decide your treatment? or should you have the power to decide?

[matthias4085]

You seem to think that those that cannot afford treatment we allow them to die... truth is there are many hospitals in each state that are paid for by the state.. in addition all hospitals private and public are required to treat someone in an emergency regardless of insurance... not to mention the hundreds of NGO's, Charities and Free clinics that help people who don't have money? Basically we have a hybrid system... is the system perfect? no, but much better than having the government decide

[AdamqK]

To take my friend's example: in the States she was pumped full of drugs while her husband worked day andnight just to pay for these drugs. Any downturn in her health was financially catastrophic. In the UK the NHS provided handrails and hoists, money towards a car that she could get in and out of (now one she can just wheel her wheelchair into) massages for her, a wheelchair and regular visits to the nearby MS centre. He now gets a carer's allowance. Both enjoy a better quality of life.

[chrisbord]

From the unfeeling government's standpoint (or a third party like yourself), that may be OK. But clearly your friend's loved ones felt differently. But when the government decides who gets what care, they decide who lives and who dies (and who suffers).

That's not compatible with the American concept of freedom. Sure, we pay a little more for health care, but it's worth it to us. Fuck the evil politicians. Fuck Obama and the Democrats.

[mw18g]

i live in the uk and i can say that this film contains a lot of propaganda.

ask my mum who found a lump and was being operated on the same day.

or my uncle who has been seriously ill and disabled his whole life and has always received excellent care.

he would be unable to get private insurance as he has a 'pre existing condition', and my dad would have bankrupted himself paying for his care.

you seem to be criticizing a system you know little about.

[captaindiesalot]

mw:

Well, we already have that, so why should we be a bunch of socialists like you idiots?

[mw18g]

because we pay half as much and no treatment is denied.

some people might have to wait, but not as many as are refused treatment by private insurers

im not saying we have the best health service in the world. just quite a good one thats cheap. the best healthcare is usually a mix of private and public

i actually think socialism is a crap way of running things.

probably unlike you i actually understand what it means, and dont use it as a general name for anything i disagree with.

[captaindiesalot]

mw: "To each according to his needs..." SOCIALISM

The command economy driven by Central Government justifying its POWER by selling itself as the "savior" of the poor.

And YET, since the intervention of the government of the US, medical care in the US has suffered one disaster after another, and to assume that more Socialism will work is the claim of fools.

Collectivism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried. There isn't one government socialized program that actually works.

[tron81]

captaindiesalot, what "socialist" things has the government done in health care that are causing our problems?

[captaindiesalot]

Tron:

You're kidding right? From interference of paperwork legislation to unfunded mandates, over control of insurance companies, required coverage for pre-existing conditions, to the "idea" that healthcare is a "RIGHT."

The Medicare System doesn't work, it's broke, Medicaid doesn't work, it's broke.

Complete Market Interference. Government is the CAUSE of these PROBLEMS and to assume MORE GOVERNMENT will WORK is simply stupid.

You can't point to one thing that Govt has done that FUNCTIONS

[wtfjaftw]

@mw18g Yeah we do know about it. Socialism in any form does not work. Government doesn't have to compete and when it does it creates a monopoly in the private sector. You're government is already under a pile of debt, healthcare is rationed in. And thats a load of crap if we lived in a true capitalist society, were money is spread around the best people would be able to give more to charity meaning much more people will get "free" treatment. And I know all about the system I lived in canada TY!

[mw18g]

@wtfjaftw ok the nhs is run by the government which is not the same as the canadian system, where the government just runs the insurance. yes there is rationing in the uk but it is also rationed in the us. in the uk however it is rationed consistently and fairly.the nhs spends less than any other system on administration while in the us loads of the money goes on paying for paperwork or 'transactional costs' which is just waste, and pays for adverts like this to fool ignorant people like you.

[mw18g]

@wtfjaftw btw n.i.c.e scientifically test the drugs to see if they work. if they don't, or if they cost more than £30,000 a year ( thats about $50,000. i assume your american) the nhs doesn't buy it. thats why the drugs companies hate n.i.c.e, because it means they cant sell drugs that dont work or are overpriced. thats why they make these stupid propaganda films. they want doctors to buy the drugs so sexy women can visit and bribe the doctors to be drug pushers. thats how it works in america

[wtfjaftw]

@mw18g Lol, just because I am against socialist medicine doesnt mean I like the American system in-fact the problem is too much government regulation! I want the market to declare how much a drug is not some corporate-government monopoly. And if someone wants to put something in their body and or buy something thats harmful it should be their right as a human being to choose. If you want real info, not propaganda look up ron paul healthcare or milton freedman healthcare.

[mw18g]

@wtfjaftw tbh milton friedman's economic policies have been far from universally successful. for instance in russia, chile, argentina they precipitated huge drops in living standards and a new super rich elite. only a complete ideologue would hold it to be universally successful. if a healthcare system which is free market based unregulated and successful does not exist in any country in the world (and it doesn't) chances are its not a good idea. bye troll.

[wtfjaftw]

@mw18g Yeah, but we keep putting more government in healthcare yet more are being more & more people are getting uninsured. And what are you talking about super rich elite? How? Thats not possibly How can a doctor pacient relationship create that? If anything It that has happend in the US, And yeah you really know what you're talking about befoe 1940s government had no hand in it and people uninsured was an all time low and stayed there!

[mw18g]

@wtfjaftw ok health care was not as much of an issue in the 40s because treatment was not so advanced and costly. government involvement is not causing more uninsured it is a reaction to it. there are successful private systems (switzerland) government systems (sweden) and govt insurance with private provision (france, canada) my point about friedman is that free market economics can be disastrous and to hold it as the answer to everything is ignorant.

[mw18g]

@mw18g friedman said that every time you buy something you vote. well problem is if you are a billionaire you get more votes. free markets mean inequality. this is simply the truth. this is fine for material goods like cars or tv's etc. but in a civilised society people should have equal access to certain things. education and police for instance. it is simply logical to put something like health in the latter category. i wont reply any more because its like talking to a brick wall.

[TheGreaterGood80]

"Sure, we pay a little more for health care, but it's worth it to us."

You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that Brits also pay for their healthcare via taxes.

[matthias4085]

Also I have to say, the only reason you are even able to afford your socialized system is because you have the US defending all of Europe's ass.... while we spend on our military you barely spend 2% of GDP on it.... Sociailzed medicine is a expenisive inefficient system... and if the US would decide not to defend Europe in an attack, your socialist system would all but disappear...

[AdamqK]

Sorry, I'm out of step with my answers. Yes, as I said, the NHS isn't perfect. But, having experienced both, I'll take the NHS any time. By the way, people do choose. If they can't get it from the NHS, they go private, simple as that -- my parents did that when my mother needed a hip operation. Despite the scaremongers, there is choice.

[matthias4085]

I think I am getting closer to your position, I just need couple questions answered if thats okey? Do you mean private as there is private health insurance also in the UK? If the answer is yes then I am a little more open to socialized medicine.....

[AdamqK]

Yes: BUPA does big business here as a private insurer. Like I said, my mother needed a hip operation, the list was too long on the NHS, so she went private -- a lot of people do. I'm on my partner's private insurance, but I've never used it: even a minor operation I had a few years ago, I got treated on the NHS. My choice.

[matthias4085]

In theory I guess I can live with socialized medicine.. however certain things stop me from having this in the US... first i don't want my taxpaying money to go into protecting the 20 million illegals that pay no taxes... in addition unlike Europe we don't have the benefit of having this system because we have to spend our money on protecting ourselves and our allies. The system is expected to cost us over a trillion dollars, I am not willing to put my grandchildren in debt ..

[flewker]

Of course there's private healthcare in the UK! This piece of propogandic rubbish gives the impression that if the nhs won't pay for something, you can't get it. Like you, we have private health insurance available, and the option to buy overpriced drugs, if the NHS decide that it's not a fair use of public money. But for the majority of the country's health problems, the government pays for treatment. And everyone's entitled to it.

[bigbother1]

Americas healthcare in a sentence

No Job NO Healthcare. No Money No Healthcare,

Ambalance men check your wallet before they check your heart beat? lol

UK HEALTHCARE (NHS ) free for all no matter if your rich or poor, job or no job?

THE INSURANCE COMPANYS HATE The NHS,,,,, no money in it for them....

you pick????

[merrimac291]

"free for all"? Uh, no. You pay through taxes. Didn't you know that?

UK has got us beat on health care in only one respect: It sounds nicer.

But in the real world where there are a finite amount of resources a "free" system ultimately results in people in government rationing and deciding who lives and who dies. What's so nice about that?

[bigbother1]

what are you talking about?

thats what free means, it means you pay through taxes AND NOT INSURANCE

BUT YOU DO KNOW WE CAN ALSO GO PRIVATE OR GET HEALTH INSURANCE

SO WE HAVE IT ALL.....

[tron81]

merrimac291, well here in the USA, it's the insurance companies who are deciding who lives and who dies. There are people who have been killed due to their insurance company claiming that the live-saving procedure they need is "experimental" when it isn't or that the insured had a "preexisting condition" when they didn't.

[kim8040]

@flewker cough cough BS

other words Take the Tax - then Deny care - hey USA broke away from you idiots for the same reason ! Look up the Tea Tax!

[wtfjaftw]

@flewker Lol private healthcare in brittan is a monopoly like here in the states, it's not true capitalism! Along with inflation and heavy taxes it becomes less and less affordable for your average brit!

[PocketJokersdotCom]

@flewker Quite like your point but the government does not pay for treatment. The tax payer pays.