National Health Service 1948

[RickyHolcroft]

So glad we have the NHS- I couldn't imagine ever being in the position where my life can't be saved because "I don't have enough money"!

[TsoLan1]

LOL at that man on the bike!

P.S: My grandad is only alive today coz of the NHS giving him a transplant. I dont think he would have been able to afford it if he had had to pay. So basically, countries without an NHS can get stuffed.

[notocensorship]

wild!

[rday18]

Show how backwards america is. This was in 1948 only 3 years after world war 2. We learnt that a healthy nation is a stronger nation.

[butchdeadlift10]

what is missing from the cross fade?

[saxladysf]

It's simple, really! Public health services organized on a national scale as a public responsibility. What don't you understand about it?

[gopconservative78]

Socialism is just another way of saying Communism

[SoziLiberAL]

WRONG! Communismus is the aim of some socialist movements. It was never reached.

But in Europe, many states uses socialism and liberalism and our life quality is better than in the US. Less crime and poverty. Look at Wikipedia: Socialism or social democracy! By the way: In the UK even the conservatives the support the NHS.

[archiebunkerville]

@SoziLiberAL

i get so sick of the name calling

i support policies that make civilization more civilized

and if that makes me a comie socialist liberal then so be it

i'm right and good and the right wing nuts are evil

end of discussion

ps the dutch model seems to work the best the dutch like it and they seem to be practical people

i mean free hookers and pot and all

[Nintendomanwill]

Bullshit. These are the policies which ruined Britain. Compare Britain in the 40s, 50, (less so 60s) and 70s to America, Germany, Japan.

You must understand, the nation really became a basket case when socialism was 99% instituted. Will you please accept that socialism as another form of statism can legitimately be compared to coercive orders such as welfarism, Nazism, Maoism, Corporatism, whatever.

As a westerner you are ignorant of your heritage, of Civilisation itself, if you are socialist.

[sharkblubber]

@Nintendomanwill The 2nd world war debts put britain backwards by 30 years actually. You shouldn't lecture on things you know little of. We were the first modern democracy, Can the US with just 2 main parties be called a "democracy" with so little choice.

[Nintendomanwill]

I don't know where to start with this. Firstly I must say that you obviously don't wish to sustain intelligent debate and frankly, with you, neither do I.

So then it comes to addressing your devastating critique of my "lecture on things I know little of." Apparently the UK didn't have ridiculously high taxes that made most high earners go non-dom, it didn't have a huge public sector economy which drained economic growth-it didn't have stagflation or strikes-NO it was JUST the debt that did it.

[sharkblubber]

@Nintendomanwill I suggest you visit a country with a national health service, to refuse it is to say you do not care about those less fortunate than yourself. Its cheaper than having private healthcare and its not based on profits. What does a private healthcare company have to gain from doing a good job, if they all do a a bad job, they get more business as more people stay ill for longer. Some things should never be privatised including water and public transport.

[Nintendomanwill]

When it comes to the rest of your comment, I think it speaks for its own truthfulness and its own relevance.

THE USA WAS A DEMOCRACY SINCE INDEPENDENCE YOU UTTER IGNORAMUS!

[sharkblubber]

@Nintendomanwill You really should check your facts: Rise of democratic parliaments in England and Scotland: Magna Carta (1215) limiting the authority of powerholders followed by English Bill of Rights and Scottish Claim of Right (1689). These pre-date your nation by many years!

[Nintendomanwill]

I am British numb-nuts! And I don't consider Magna Carta, a baronial document securing their liberty from arrogant despotism, as anything LIKE the US constitution. Sorry British Patriot, I'm not interested in 1689's condemnation of Catholicism either!

I don't need to address the fallacies RE public healthcare as I have done so at length and it remains for you to educate yourself on the truth.

I however think that your point on transport is valid.

[sharkblubber]

@Nintendomanwill The US constitution borrowed most of its ideas from the parliamentary democracy system. p.s. I'm not English, nor am I patriotic (nationalist) but the free market healthcare system has severe flaws mainly because it is based on profits rather than good service.

[Nintendomanwill]

I think that is valid, but ask yourself, what is the unseen opportunity cost incurred when government decrees, coerces, industry which the market would not sustain? Nominally cheaper prices (check your stats against inflation sonnyjim!) might arise but even with real term savings, the capital had to come from somewhere! That taxation might have been used for provision of services where the money was more needed, by the private or even the public sector. Think like an economist, not a layman!

[sharkblubber]

@Nintendomanwill I'm thinking like a scientist and when you measure how happy a population is there is a strong correlation with quality of life and high taxes. Scandinavia has higher taxes than the UK but they have a higher quality of life and are happier on average in surveys.

[Nintendomanwill]

BTW I went to school in the south east via train for seven years. From sep 2002 to dec 2003 it was LAUGHABLE! Some weeks we were late all of the five school days! Double cancellations were not exactly rare. We had EPIC fun. Once the driver was drunk, went past two stations without stopping then hit a sheep! But since South Eastern took over from Connex, and since the new trains came in Dec 2003 it has been excellent and we can sleep easy knowing that it pays for itself, via its own profitability

[sharkblubber]

@Nintendomanwill By 2002 all the trains were privatised. They really were awful, have improved slightly but again you have the issue that their primary role is to make profit, not provide a good service.

[Nintendomanwill]

Man, read my comments, yeah? I describe how the trains improved, REVOLUTIONISED following c.2002 so by saying that they were all privatised from that era doesn't help you anti-privatisation case. K?

They therefore currently don't exist as a net-loss but run on a profit. Don't lecture me about trains, I took one ten times a week for seven years. They're okay now.

[sharkblubber]

If they have made a profit it is at the sacrifice of service. Train prices are extortionate, 5000 for a season ticket! They are so badly run by the private sector that UK train fares are already 20% higher than the European average.

[Nintendomanwill]

Yes, competition should open in terms of running competing services on the same lines because depending on where you are, the line is monopolised. BUT they still have to make the train affordable. The answer is less state organisation and more spontaneity, not running the industry at a loss thereby damaging the economy and using capital that could and would be used elsewhere in a free market.

As for profit at sacrifice of service, you're speaking crap, the service improves with profit.

[sharkblubber]

@Nintendomanwill Take at look at the bigger picture, cheaper transport encourages people to use the trains and increases business as a result so more money is made from taxes to put into trains. The wallets of the shareholders improve with profits. The rail safety record has become worse too. The railways are far too much of a natural monopoly to be privately run.

[Nintendomanwill]

And as for the higher prices-you can't compare the cost of trains to European costs when

a. their trains are often ran at net loss and therefore might reduce society's potential productivity in application and allocation of resource

b. We earn higher real wages do we not, and therefore the costs aren't really comparable for the average Brit and the average Frenchman or whatever.

If the prices are so extortionate then find another transport system.

[sharkblubber]

@Nintendomanwill Find me a privately owned transport system that isn't based solely on profits when it would be based on service and accountability if it were renationalised?

[Nintendomanwill]

From the previous batch of comments there is only one point on which I would like to argue as the others just seem like randomly juxtaposed words, or something coherent but complete BS in terms of validity.

You said that railways are too much of a natural economy to allow private ownership...no, state ownership requires coerced funding, non-dynamic actual ownership of resource, ie the state never sells it if you have things your way-and it's all decree led rather than profit-led. Must be privat

[sharkblubber]

@Nintendomanwill Let me put it to you another way with another example where service suffers while profits rise so your arrogance doesn't impede your objectivity. Water companies, what benefit do they get from providing a good efficient service, if they do a bad job and get water leaks they can get away with doing the minimum to fix it and make more profit in the process. I would rather have a share of the water company payed for in taxes than rely on profit led coms that require growth.

[SoziLiberAL]

And when you say the UK is communistic, sorry, but i have to laugh. Soviet Union has fallen down, but the other side, the radical liberalism or US-Conservatism will be too.

The US is an uncivilized country, who everybody can carry a weapon and people can't pay her healthcare, what a sick country. Come to Europe and i show you, what happens while you live on your cowboy ranch. LOL.

[Nintendomanwill]

America once lorded it up over us, but since Nixon they've descended into Socialism, since indeed Hoover they've pursued statist economic policy.

America needs to change its healthcare by having a free market.

End ALL subsidies that prevent price decreases. End ALL taxes that increase running costs!

Allow the free market, the one which provides everything good in civilisation, to make healthcare more efficient, don't follow the evil bureaucratised state monopoly method!

Spontaneous order!

[Nintendomanwill]

Oy, Soziliberal, if Americans knew just how poor many in western Europe are, then their complaints about the downturn would be less. They are still much richer than us Europeans even though they are becoming more statist. To say that America has pursued radical liberalism is just ignorant, even Reagan pursued a fair few interventions. Again, you enemies of freedom and free markets always rely on common misconceptions.

FUCK STATOLATRISTS!

[sharkblubber]

@Nintendomanwill The free market fails on one glaring point, it relies on constant growth and this is impossible on a finite planet with only so many alternative resources to choose from. A static sustainable economy would work better.

[grungedistortion999]

@sharkblubber Quite agree and this sort of thing will become a big issue in the next 100 years. The only thing that will prevent this is consumerism and demand for even increasing technology etc driving growth through demand. However some sort of Communism is not a good idea since it will not solve the problem as it too relies on growth, despite claims that it doesn't :)

[wissenshungrig]

@Nintendo

Em, NO, poverty rate is much lower in western Europe than in the states. Only the richest are richer.

[Nintendomanwill]

Really? Care to back that up with some facts? And what of it? Even if most of Western Europe were richer than most Americans, what does that have to do with the quality of healthcare? Does the poverty rate in Europe have anything to do with exactly how affordable/good the healthcare is?

The way in which men co-operate is through contract. When you destroy the free market to make something 'cheaper' you necessarily remove the freedom of contract: the NHS allows no competition and bad care. Fact.

[toxicpiano]

@Nintendomanwill

You are wrong about competition. In the early 90s the conservative government introduced the 'internal market' to the NHS which was specifically designed to create competition within the NHS.

[Nintendomanwill]

Great.

Another element introduced into the NHS purposed to remove it's absolute, capital decumulating inefficiency, was New Labour's 'target' system. In order to gain Foundation Hospital status and higher funding, which under the hospital bureaucrats assessing the target and the medical staff achieving it, tends to translate to higher wages, nurses have an incentive to hold back on care just to reach these arbitrary targets of financial efficiency. So single payer again fails at serving people

[Marnerbanana]

@Nintendomanwill

"the NHS allows no competition and bad care. Fact."

higher rated care and lower cost on a national scale, the NHS allows very little (frankly no would be fine too but there are some companies involved) and very GOOD care.

[shmuli9]

@Nintendomanwill That's not how it would work, or works in England at ALL. "Health care reform" won't put insurance companies or HMOs out of business; it will ensure a BASIC level of heath care for everyone (right now many people in the US aren't poor enough to have Medicare or well-off enough to have private insurance), and companies can offer, as perks, MORE frills (like private rooms in hospitals and the like).

[RickyHolcroft]

@Nintendomanwill That's not a fact lol it's your own opinion and really ignorant. If you want to start slating the NHS can you at least think of why they brought the NHS in, why 90% of people in the UK are satisfied with it and why these systems score the top marks in the world. If you want facts, 50.7 million people in America couldn't get health insurance in 2010 because they couldn't afford it (baring in mind a lot of people these days inherit their wealth, that could have been you).

[shmuli9]

@wissenshungrig You're right, Wissen... While in the US, incomes levels vary greatly from poor to rich, Western Europeans tend to be mostly lower-middle class ("maybe in 15 years we can afford a clothes dryer"), with a few REALLY rich people.

[wissenshungrig]

Competition ist good, but not in healthcare. The US spend more money on healthcare, than most european countries, but is it the best? No, it isn't. Most healthcare rankings shows, that the best systems are socialized. Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, France etc. Competition ist good for drugs, but there is no reason, why a democratic healthcare system need it.

[sharkblubber]

Socialism in practice means looking after the less well off, this reduces social strife, do you have a problem with that or are you selfish?

[Nintendomanwill]

Socialism doesn't reduce social strife!

I won't go into the basic economics and history of what socialism does because you're clearly an imbecile, but to help you become a good person and a believer in liberty, I advise you to start reading some books, and to bear this in mind: the division of labour is the unity of interests. On the other hand, when govt tries to reduce social strife through coercion, it must necessarily introduce some class warfare, a zero sum game.

[sharkblubber]

@Nintendomanwill Have you ever lived in a country with a national health service? If you haven't then you know nothing about just how good it is. Its cheaper too :)

p.s. i have lived in countries with no national health as well, they are expensive and only interested in profit. p.s. constant growth is unsustainable ona finite planet, an economists nightmare.

[Tylerscotsdale]

Wow the ignorance in these few words just blew me away. Please do us all a favor and do a little research before you spew forth such unintelligent garbage. I'm serious it only takes about 10 minutes of Googling the words Socialism and Communism to know the difference.

[AnomicHumanist]

Hi there its me again. Hope you are well. If it was called "Universal" healthcare would that not scare you so much. Don't you think ALL Americans should have a right to access to healthcare with an option to go private if they wish to? Its HEALTH care. It is not going to threaten your individual freedom. I don't want my personal freedom messed with either...Americans do not have a monopoly on that desire. Its not communism. Its compassion for others and helping each other.

[Senlocc]

its sad here in the US.. we dont see things like this in our media or from our government ..the media trys to scare the ppl about a universal system.. even ppl that are in debt with health care bills are scared of obamas new reform plan..its really sad..im all for a social system..there's to many ppl like George here in the US with out the right info or outlook on this kinda health care system... i pray more Americans get they heads out there asses and think 4 themselves.

[TheWilliamcale]

a basically good idea but it started a nanny state

[dolphin8b]

No it didn't.........

[TheWilliamcale]

you dont live in a nanny state?

you have cameras everywhere and your governement has disarmed its people

you live in a f*ckin police state

[NorthPlum]

And it affects the everyday person in this country how?

I'd rather live in the UK than the US. So keep your guns and "protection" you receive.

[krazykeys88]

Silence evil american! I like my socialist government and I like free healthcare. I like wathcing State owned TV with no adverts, I like knowing that when I pay my electricity bill, im paying for what im getting , not for a shareholders house in hawaii unlike you capitalist scum. Socialist Britain Forever :-)

[TheWilliamcale]

as long as Royal Mail get you your dole check every week right mr  socialsim

typical lazy chav product of the wrlfare state..living off the hard work of others.

fine but you could at least show some gratitude

[krazykeys88]

Il have you know im studying greek at oxford actually, and I do not claim benefits and pay 10% in tax. I do not live off anyones hard work.

[TheWilliamcale]

my god another useless intellectual

oh yes you are a parasite

if youd told me you collected garbage

or cleaned toilets for a living i'd have more respect for you

at least those workers do an honest days labour, and i respect them for that

no shame in honest toil

[krazykeys88]

HAHAHAHAH

Yes ive worked 20 hours a week whilst studying for the past 4 years, and guess what, i paid tax on that too, so fuck off.

[AnomicHumanist]

Yes. The bloody Queen is the worst offender!!! I read however that as many as 45 million American citizens have (for whatever reasons) no health insurance. They are in trouble if tgey get ill. Also many Insurance Companies will not cover people with longstanding chronic conditions...or even cancer sufferers. Or at the premiuns are exorbitant. Do think that is fair?

[TheWilliamcale]

i think the publicoption might work. they could expand medicare to cover the working poor i know in the 70s it did in many states medic cal in californiua used to

[TheWilliamcale]

Medi-Cal is the name of the Medicaid program in the State of California. It is jointly administered by the California State Department of Health Care Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), operating as a Medical Assistance Program under Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

[AnomicHumanist]

With freedom comes responsibility. That is THe American way!!!! If a commie socialized health system came to The U.S.A we'd be stuck with it. Millions of people would lose their jobs. Doctors would leave in droves as wages would fall. God Bless America!!!!

[TheWilliamcale]

are you being sarcatic. to be honest as an american i think that atitude is taken to an extreme. millions of people wont lose their jobs, how owuld that happen? as for doctors leaving? where will they go?

no part of resposibility is for society to take resposiblity for elderly disabled nd others who cant fend for themselves.

if most people can then find if they are happy with their insurance fine. but private companies are totally unregualted and basically take peoples money and often drop

[TheWilliamcale]

coverage. what is your game your argueing both sides its annoying pick a side and stick to it

[AnomicHumanist]

I do apologize. I am trying to get a balanced view. I am not expressing an opinion either way. I am trying to get information. There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding about our two health services and the attitudes of members of our two societies. Myths and stereotypes. I have already learned something from talking to you. I assure you I am not trying to mess with you

[TheWilliamcale]

as a centrist in the political spectrum i am in a quandry. i'm not one of these fend for yourself libertarian right wing social darwinist types, and yet as an EX socialist i do sincerely realize the limitations of governement involvemenrt in peoples lives and the economy and society.Americans are resistant to the governement runing or being involved in anything to the point of irrational paranoia

therefore i feel since there is a need and a societal obligation to gaurantee

health care to all

[TheWilliamcale]

in my opinion it is a mystery as to why everyone seems to be ignoring one model that would seem to be the best fit for the USA the dutch health model

recenlty the dutch switiched from a mainly

state run system to a almost entirely private system that covers everyone

i think it is curious the dutch model is ignored

[AnomicHumanist]

Thank you. I'll take a look at that link

[krazykeys88]

No one would loose their jobs, they just would be working for the state instead of a fat capitalist. OK a FEW rich people would be a bit less rich. Oh dear. BUT 45 million people would have the right to live! Hooray! oh i forgot dollars are worth more than lives in the USA! Yes GOD WANTS THE USA TO GET SOCIALISED HEALTHCARE!

[TheWilliamcale]

british socialism = the uk in 1979

what kind of idiot wants to return to that?

[AnomicHumanist]

I don't wanna get dragged into an us V them situation but I tend to agree eith you on this

[krazykeys88]

actually our socialised doctors earn 20% more than US doctors.

[AnomicHumanist]

Really? Where did you get your stats. I thought American doctors got paid more

[BOLSHEVIXTREME]

@krazykeys88 do you know what annoys me

so called patriotic Americans would rather uphold the death penalty which costs a lot more than life in prison, which takes lives away instead of introducing an NHS in America which costs tax payers less money and ensures free medical service to those who have no insurance and cannot afford neither insurance nor treatment

[shmuli9]

@BOLSHEVIXTREME That's because, like a child (with severe sociopathic tendecies) who pulls the legs off bugs, many "Amurrikens" "lahk to kill things" far more than they'd prefer to preserve life...

[shmuli9]

@krazykeys88 Indeed they do! And do you know how? The US, in particular is a very litigious ("prone to sue") society, and a good deal of what would be prfits are eaten up by EXTREMELY high "malpractice" insurance. Why some "Amurrikens" are "aginst" national health care is beyond me.

[Insaneronald]

@krazykeys88

Being a doctor isn't about earning thousands of £ And don't try to pretend they're poor...

[waveali]

Better than a state with wall to wall medical bankruptcies.

[TheWilliamcale]

perhaps i am not nor do i wish to defend the american "system" or lack there of

but i do think the dutch private or the french public private mix doles a better job of providing quality care..

i do not come to condemn france

but to praise it

[TheWilliamcale]

The French healthcare system was named by the World Health Organization as the best performing system in the world in terms of availability and organization of health care providers (by comparison, the US ranked number 37). It is a universal health care system, but is not a single-payer system

[krazykeys88]

yes but it is evil cause people still make a profit out of suffering.

[TheWilliamcale]

why is making a profit evil. more people suffer under socialism

[krazykeys88]

Not british socialism.

[TheWilliamcale]

britian was socialist in 1979

Thatcher put an end to that

and you should thank her

what yoy have now is third way

and quite frankly thats basically what i beleive in but strictly speaking it isnt socialism its a mix of the free market

and remnants of the wlefare state

i have no problem with that

[TheWilliamcale]

The Third Way is a term that has been used to describe a political position which attempts to transcend left-wing and right-wing politics by advocating a mix of some left-wing and right-wing policies. Third Way approaches are commonly viewed as representing a centrist compromise between capitalism and socialism, or between market liberalism and democratic socialism

[TheWilliamcale]

Historian Paul Dutton claims that while many in the US deride the French system as "socialized medicine," the French do not consider their mixed public and private system "socialized" and, as in the US, the population tends to look down upon British- and Canadian-style socialized medicine

[TheWilliamcale]

Health care in the Netherlands, has since January 2006 been provided by a system of compulsory insurance backed by a risk equalization program so that the insured are not penalized for their age or health status. This is meant to encourage competition between health care providers and insurers. Children under 18 are insured by the government, and special assistance is available to those with limited incomes.

[TheWilliamcale]

In 2005, the Netherlands spent 9.2% of GDP on health care, or US$3,560 per capita. Of that, approximately 65% was government expenditure

[BiffMP5]

I, for one, am glad that I wasn't forced to pay into a system I never used when I was off my parents' insurance for 2 years. Even if I weren't a government employee (and thus, fully covered), I wouldn't choose anything but a low-premium, high-deductible catastrophic insurance plan. And I'd definitely pay my dentist out of pocket per visit.

If you want to retain the fruits of your labor, then socialism is not the way.

[nationalrealist]

The reason why americans have such strong antipathy towards any sort of welfare program such as universal healthcare is due to the fact that you are a diverse multi-ethnic society and european societies are( for now) relatively homogeneous .

In an ethnically homogeneous society people have a sense of obligation towards their fellow citizens, mainly due to a cultural and historical bonds.

In multi-ethnic societies(the US), people are more likely to subscribe to individualistic>>>>

[nationalrealist]

cont>> ideologies such as libertarianism and show less enthuasiasm towards any form of colectivism as they dont feel the same historic and cultural bond as they do in european societies.

In the US for example UHC wouldnt work as it would end up being disproportionately funded by white tax payers and disproportionately availed of by minorities.

AS for political ideologies, libertarianism is just as dangerous as communism in my opinion, selfish hyper-indvidualism has no place in europe.

[nationalrealist]

thats the reason i oppose multiculturalism, it leads to fractured, depraved uncaring societies such as the USA. Im not attacking you, just explaining that the libertarian ideology is the product of a hyper-individualistic immigrant society.

[BiffMP5]

Lots to cover here, but I'll try to keep it short.

Multi-ethnicity is immaterial. I hold the same rule to immigrants and minorities as I do to other natural-born white males: no one has the right to my property or my labor. However, I accept a *moral* responsibility to others and do not turn away those in need. Americans are far more compassionate than you give them credit for; it is simply the case that the government, for all its apparent power, cannot help the needy as adequately (cont'd)

[nationalrealist]

i have read up libertarian ideology in the past and do agree that libertarians make some valid arguements but it is ultimately flawed for a number of reasons in my opinion. It basically means that private individuals who can accumalate the most capital can form monopolies and cartels and negate any of the percieved "benefits" of the "free" market. Private banks are free to inflate cont

[nationalrealist]

the currenecy through the creation of artificial debt money and private individuals can also undermine the currency through speculation. of course private enterprize must be encouraged, but it must not be allowed to undermine workers rights as the robber barons did in the US, in your so called "free" society. as for welfare programs such as uhc, my country has such programs and are a source of pride amongst the population.

If my government ended uhc tommorow, they'd be thrown out of>>>>>

[nationalrealist]

office.

of course our health system isnt perfect, but at least people with serious illnesses regardless of their financial situation are guaranteed treatment, without having to worry about being bankrupted by medical bills from greedyfatcats.

I personally could think of a number of ways of reforming the irish welfare system for example that would half its budget, by replacing it with a serious of workfare programs wherever possible as it is abused by some individuals.

the problem>>>>

[nationalrealist]

is there are no guarantees in a libertarian society and i believe a persons merit goes far beyond their abilities as consumers and producers.

police, fire brigade and eduation to name a few are payed for by taxes so whats the difference with another essential service.

diffrent attitudes prevail in european countries, you have to understand its the result of a different ethos, irish people for example demand good public services for our citizens and wouldnt subscribe to libertarianism.>>>

[nationalrealist]

I still believe, that its due to the relatively homogeneous nature of european societies. of course this is under threat from mass third world imigration and being a nationalist and economic third positionist i would favour an immediate halt and reversal of this process.

It goes far beyond mere economic concerns though, the cultural and spiritual preservtion of a society is more important.

[BiffMP5]

First of all, understand that the United States economy is not a free market. At best, it's "crony capitalism."

Monopolies and cartels cannot exist without government intervention and, thus, are extremely rare in a free market. Should corporations form them, competitors will emerge and offer the same services or goods at better prices.

Fractional reserve banking is fraudulent. It has no place in a free market and is punishable under the law. The very existence of competing (cont'd)

[BiffMP5]

currencies is enough to protect against this destructive practice, since consumers will use the soundest money available.

Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Men like John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt were market entrepreneurs (not "robber barons") who achieved their wealth by selling superior products without federal subsidies. *Political* entrepreneurs are those who profit at others' expense.

Regardless of your pride in UHC, the facts speak for themselves. (cont'd)

[BiffMP5]

Family, friends, churches, charity groups, and free clinics provide better help than any government can. Even some general practitioners (namely, those who don't operate through insurance) are perfectly willing to render free service. Before government intervention in medicine, we didn't have anyone begging for health care. Now we do. We also had extremely low fees because of unfettered competition. Only now do we have prohibitively high costs.

Workfare programs are unproductive. (cont'd)

[Dambuster11]

Yes and before you make a comment like that take the time to actually find out how hard life was before the Labour Government introduced these and i think you will find that people where begging for health care its just the upper classes didnt listen.

[BiffMP5]

Free market medicine worked extremely well in the United States after World War II. In fact, it was widely considered the best available.

Also, let me remind you that advances in medical technology largely come from Americans seeking recognition and profit, such as Raymond Damadian and Paul Lauterbur, who pioneered magnetic resonance imaging.

[dolphin8b]

No it doesn't. CAT scanning was develop by a Briton. Sir Godfrey Hounsfield, embryonic stemcells by Martin Evans, James Blundell did the first blood transfusion, Joseph Lister and Antisepsis, Alexamnder Flemming and Penicillin;Henry Gray of Gray's anonotomy is British, intraocular lens tranplant process is British , the first test tube baby was British (Louise Brown), Dolly the clonned sheep was British, Viagra was developed by a Briton, 1st successful stem cell transplant etc.....

[dolphin8b]

William Harvey and the circulation of blood (he was British), the discoverer of the active ingredient in Aspirin - Edmund Stone was British pioneering the use of sodium cromoglycate as a remedy for asthma - Roger Altounyan# Smallpox vaccine - Edward Jenner * Pioneering the use of surgical anaesthesia with Chloroform: Sir James Young Simpson (1811-1870) * The hypodermic syringe: Alexander Wood (1817-1884)

[dolphin8b]

# Identifying the mosquito as the carrier of malaria: Sir Ronald Ross (1857-1932)

# Identifying the cause of brucellosis: Sir David Bruce (1855-1931)

# Discovering the vaccine for typhoid fever: Sir William B. Leishman (1865-1926)

# Discovering insulin: John J R Macleod (1876-1935) with others

# Penicillin: Sir Alexander Fleming (1881-1955)

# Discovering an effective tuberculosis treatment: Sir John Crofton in the 1950s

# Primary creator of the artificial kidney Kenneth Lowe

[dolphin8b]

William Morgan (scientist) Inventor of the Vacuum Tube, Coolidge Tube, Britain's first actuary, founding father of modern actuarial science.

[BiffMP5]

If the government wants to create jobs, it needs to butt out and let the market work. Peter Schiff, for example, is not allowed to hire any more employees and expand his firm, though Euro Pacific Capital would make far better use of those people than any "New New Deal" initiative would.

The fact that public services exist is no argument for nationalizing others. The police cannot protect me once my home is invaded, the fire department cannot put out an oven fire before it engulfs (cont'd)

[BiffMP5]

my kitchen, and the federal government gave me a second-rate education. Likewise, I (not central planners) am the best judge of what medical care I need.

I maintain that Denmark sets the example for Europe with regard to immigration. One should have no problem with those who enter a country and happily adapt to the native way of life. (cont'd)

[BiffMP5]

You apparently have looked into libertarianism, but the arguments you presented suggest that you would do well to delve more deeply into this multi-layered philosophy. As I said, the answers are readily available, but they require a lot of effort to find and absorb. This will be my last post; I'll read anything else you have to say, but I've made my points and do not wish to continue further. Good day.

[nationalrealist]

You make alot of valid arguements, I personally would be in favour of removing some regulations from the productive sectors of the economy. I also agree that socialism can cause a society to stagnate through inefficiency hence the reason im not a socialist(in the european context) but im not a free market capitalist either. I believe in a a form of capitalism within a nationalistic framework.

I also disagree with subsidizing failing industries and bailing out the banks, i believe they should>>>

[nationalrealist]

be allowed to fail, so successful industries and individuals arent taxed to the hilt to prop up failing industries.If we empower the successful enterprizes ultimately more jobs will be created and unemployment will fall, however i do believe in a safety net for individuals and good public services. I may not be a libertarian but i respect your beliefs and understand the libertarian arguements, i just dont agree with them.

i still believe its due to different attitudes in europe and the US.

[nationalrealist]

oh one more thing, i'd favour abolishing the central banking system. It makes no sense for a governments to borrow money at interest when it can print its own.

I think you'd be in agreement on that, as i know ron paul spoke alot about your fed.

I hope hes successful in getting that audited, maybe people in other countries will wake up to this fraud.

anyway, all the best.

[BiffMP5]

as individuals can. And we can do so of our own volition.

Every argument for socialism that I've read is an insult or an appeal to emotions; proponents grieve over the desperate plight of the underclass and accuse libertarians of selfishness and callousness. In stark contrast, libertarian beliefs are well-backed by sound logic and historical facts, many of which you can read on lewrockwell(dot)com. As with most issues, the answers are out there, but you need to look for them.

[BiffMP5]

Regarding multiculturalism, I share many of Christopher Hitchens and Pat Condell's concerns for Western values. However, the issue here is not foreign food and clothing, but antiquated, divisive, and repressive beliefs for which some immigrants demand accommodation. Denmark now requires immigrants to learn Danish culture, history, and language and secure an occupation in order to live there. The rest of Europe could well learn from this example.

[TheDarkBlueWorld]

Happy Birthday NHS 1948-

[DaniDavil]

thank you, my exam is on the NHS, nice key facts on that video thank you : )

[BethGoth15]

Lol! I have an exam on the history of the NHS and this was kind of helpful. Thanks!!

[markdcatlin]

Good luck on your exam!

Since we in the United States might create a universal health care system in this next 12-18 months, I found this old film very interesting.