WWII enriched the munitions industry while impoverishing all nations.
War is a racket.
American General Smedley Butler, a multiple recipient of the Medal of Honour, said it was. No doubt it will always continue to be so unless we stop our governments from going to war at the drop of a hat.
Surely, providing free health care for everyone including the rich, poor, homeless, good and evil should be a moral responsibility for everyone. If you don't think it is, should we also privatise the police service, fire department and armed forces. If you are happy to help pay for your country's wars, have a little heart and help pay for its health.
@kevinkards1 Then learn to insure yourselves like the Fench, Germans or even better the Swiss before you are a 'customer' in Europe's worst health lack of service.
Nearly 45% of our health care is paid for by the government. So we are far from free market health care. The real problem is third parties, which constitutes ~90% of our health care. There are no incentives for patients to spend less money & shop around. There are no market factors causing doctors to lower prices and compete in pricing.
High deductible insurance policies combined with tax-free HSAs would lower health care costs and increase quality of care people are receiving.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Bureacracy is a dirty word for this man, taxes dirty, typical right wing twat, don't like taxes ! Live in a third world country then! Government is a bad thing, live in a country without one !
We can afford the NHS as well...The same right wing people who say we should leave the EU because we are very wealthy say we can not afford the NHS !...Do the logic and maths on that...They are ways we can improve it such as moving from expensive hospital care (that is why the NHS bill is big) but we are now moving towards specialised care that are also better for a patients...Believe in the NHS.....
America during the 1800s was a perfect example of where your strawman argument falls apart. High real GDP growth, no inflation, cost of living decreases throughout the century. Enjoy your devalued sovereign debt rating and the bankrupted NHS.
1800's ? No freedom either, especially if you were a black african slave..How is the NHS bankrupted? As for the debt rating...I'am no fan of current policy but i believe in a welfare state and good fiscal policies to achieve it....
That ranking is due to several factors - a cultural distrust of doctors by some due to historical factors, a higher accident or murder or suicide rate among certain groups, lifestyle choices for smoking or drugs or booze, the poor avoiding prenatal care, or the many that wait until they have advanced disease to see a doctor.
really? and the UK doesn't have similar lifestyle 'issues', no 'binge drinking' problem in the UK, no entrenched use of tobacco in Scotland and parts of the north, highest percentages of drug use, and hard drug use in the whole of the EU?
The fact of the matter is that the US performs badly no matter how you try to square it. It's shamefully worse than Cuba when it comes to infant mortality.
Cuba doesn't count a death as infant mortality until the child has been alive for several days, weeks even. The manner in which data is gathered is unfavorable and misleading to say the least. Cuba, in reality, is a sorry excuse for a third world nations attempt at healthcare. What the nation releases gives it a positive spin, but in reality, I'd rather try and treat myself living in America than go through what the average Joe suffers in Cuba.
can't be worse than the current system... costs double what the NHS costs, and delivers healthcare which puts the US 19 countries behind the UK in health provision.
if you did some research into healthcare rather than listening to talk radio perhaps you'd have a more reality based opinion
The higher cost is due to the need for tort reform - doctors order extra tests as a defense against a possible lawsuit, and have to pay up to $200,000 per year for liability insurance.
Health insurance here is NOT expensive, but millions choose to NOT buy it because they want to spend their money on EXPENSIVE things.
I've been an RN for many years, so MAYBE I know what I'm talking about??
I'm sorry. I assumed due to your odd use of CAPITALS within SENTANCES, sorry again.
Surely if Doctors/Hospital groups/etc are run as private businesses designed to maximise the profit then the public have a right to sue for malpractice.
EXACTLY, but TRIAL lawyers OWN the DEMOCRATS, so there is ZERO tort reform in their health reform bill NOW, but the REPUBLICANS have a SIMPLE 10 point plan that is cost NEUTRAL.
can you please start using CAPITALS like a normal person.
Surely the thing that would truly sort things would be the government running things like hospitals and doctors etc rather than them being run as private profit making businesses.
you know, like how it's done in the top countries in the world for health provision. I'm just going by the evidence, here. It works.
The evidence clearly shows that socialism works better for healthcare... have a look at the top 10 countries ranked for healthcare.
Are you really saying people in Spain, Italy, and France for example don't have freedom? You can still be free, and have a public health system managed by the state (with a private option for those who want to pay extra). That's how it works in all the top rated countries for healthcare.
I was AFRAID that would happen - as soon as I STOP using CAPS, you FORGET ALL that I wrote.
I've been DOING RESEARCH since BEFORE you were BORN. It's been part of my JOB for MANY years.
I treat patients from all over the WORLD who come HERE to get the BEST healthcare. Just ONE example: DEATH rates from CANCER here are the LOWEST in the world.
I only pay about 25% of my salary for ALL TAXES, due to IRA and INSURANCE costs being deducted BEFORE TAXES are calculated.
Do you mind not being quite so patronising. YOU are the one who HASN'T ENGAGED with my POINTS. Yes the US has the best rate for survival from cancer, but for other things it's out performed by such economic powerhouses (I'm being ironic) as, um, Cuba.
You should your ideological blinkers, and look at the evidence with an open mind, rather than with your mind made up before hand.
Good point. Socialism in many regards is a quasi religion, and when you have a socialist party in power you essentially have policies written around their particular view of morality and the hierarchy of value.
Traditionally the povery problem was solved by logical development, charity and most importantly, the free market which has obviously allowed people of even modest wealth to have an extremely high quality of life with the latest technological luxuries.
The fault in your argument is that you set up a straw man just in order to demolish it .. No large industrial democracy has a ' free market ' in healthcare. All have socialised systems in which state funding is the major component. Neither Dan Hannen nor anyone else as far as I know is suggesting getting rid of it & I suspect it would not even be possible.
The US uses the market to determine pricing, and the entities within the US healthcare system act as private businesses. It doesn't matter if the US government (state + local) is the largest customer, it's about as free market as you can get for a large industrial democracy.
and this provides expensive bad results... for all it's faults the NHS costs 1/2 the amount of the US system, and provides better service. That's why the WHO ranks the UK at 18 for healthcare, and the US 37. .
Just take a trip to the vet that will give you an idea of what it would be like without an NHS and while you are there get that arsehole Hannan put down
well, 34% is paid by the central government, and 11% by local government.
The key difference is that doctors/hospitals groups/etc are private businesses. Prices are also privately regulated by the market. Where as in in the top performing countries they aren't.
The problem in the US seems to be the enormous cost of healthcare. You simply want to dump the whole thing on the taxpayer. No attempt to reform the present system which you blame on the market. the problems with the US system arise from bad laws , the excessive cost of legal liability and that it is an insurance based scheme (who worries about costs when someone else is paying). You must reform this before even considering another countries flawed system.
I'd agree that there needs to be legal liability reform.
it's the other countries like France, Spain, Italy, etc which do pay for it through direct taxation, and the government operates large parts of the healthcare system, which provide THE best healthcare in the world. That's the model the US should be aspiring to.
I blame it on the market because it is mostly to blame. The legal liability issue would be easier to fix if the hospital groups/doctors weren't run as private businesses.
I notice that you do not mention the UK . A country in which government expenditure on the NHS has risen by 6% year on year and yet productivity has actually declined!The extra costs going into salaries.You must reform before spending money.Isnt that what legislators are for.
The main problem with the NHS has been the rise of a very expensive layer of middle management. This was a product of Thatcherism, and Thatcherismlite (as Nu Labour is).
Yes, but reform must push it away from such expensive rubbish as PPI (privatisation by the back door) and towards the continental European model. Which is socialised, is mostly government controlled, minimizes the market, and more importantly provides the best healthcare in the world.
why do we still have it 60 years on. Because it so popular that it would be political suicide for any UK party to get rid of it. Simple fact. Why do you think the UK Conservative party are trying to distance themselves from this payed shrill (how much is he getting from US insurance companies for this garbage).
The fact of the matter is that UK health care is slightly better overall than US healthcare yet costs half the amount.
It's also worse for infant mortality than Cuba. I find it deeply ironic that the Right in the US cares more for the unborn child than the child in childbirth....
Ah Daniel Hannan, the definition of political rentboy. He needs to stick to appearing on Fox News, his idiocy and lack of class don't stand out so much over there.
Hannan once again effortlessly proves what a complete out touch buffoon he is. My favourite part has to be where he says that people would have a different view of the NHS if theyve lived abroad! Of course, now is the perfect time for people to take advantage of the economic downturn to sell their house, up sticks and move to America for a year Ive heard its the land of opportunities! Perhaps Hannan should subsidise the NHS by selling the massive silver spoon stuck up his arse.
He is 100% right. In countries I have lived in outside the UK there were no queues. You could have an operation within a week, after consultations. The UK needs to wake up.
It is well documented, healthcare in the US is less efficient and serves only a fraction of the population. It's frankly disgusting that the wealthiest nation in the world is not civilised enough to provide universal healthcare.
The US has not been the wealthiest nation in a number of years... We are the largest debtors in the history of the world.
If the US healthcare system is less efficient that many other socialized health care systems, then why do all of the significant medical advancements happen in the US?
Im sorry, but in case you didn't realise GDP is the actual measure of wealth these days. Maybe the debt you've accrued invading middle eastern countries might start having an impact on that income, but its generally agreed that the USA is the richest country in the world.
Secondly, there is a difference between medical discoveries and actual treatment. Have a look at where the biggest pharmaceutical companies are based: Bayer - Germany, Glaxosmithkline - UK, etc. i.e. NOT IN THE US
It's not just invading the middle east. It's the cost of us policing the world; Bases in 131 countries.
You may calculate wealth by your country's GDP, but the individual doesn't care what that number is. It's what one can save from their own devises.
Medical advancements happen in the US because of the environment to produce these products. Once the government changes the rules there will be less demand. Companies and smart people will flock to what ever island of Freedom that is left.
Please tell me then, why 6 out of the largest 8 pharmeceutical industries are based in countries with public healthcare. Medical advancements are dependent on a private/public sector they are dependent on the wealth and intelligence of the nation.
Oh, and are you talking about GDP per capita (per person). Because yeh, the US has the highest of that aswell funnily enough.
4 out of those 6 are very old companies, or new mergers of very old companies, that were formed well before socialized medicine was all the rage, and their infrastructure is to well emplaced to be moved. Let's expand that list a bit, shall we? Of the top 12 pharmaceutical companies, 6 of them are in the U.S.. Of the top 17, 9 are in America. My, that's over half of them.
The simple fact of the matter is, research and development in all fields, including healthcare, runs on an ability to profit.
Yes but the top 8 are where the big discoveries are made mate. Glaxosmithkline in particular make a wide range of discoveries in different fields every year, and are based in the UK.
Of course I don't deny that healthcare probably does need an element of market forces. However this should not compromise the fact that every citizens should have a right to a healthy life. You seem to ignore the fact that a healthy population actually has a positive externality on the wider economy.
As I stated, in response to your point about 6 of the top 8 big pharma companies being in countries with socialized medicine, the one you cite is a relatively recent merger of very old companies, created before your NHS was ever conceived. Of course I never did mention, that the top 2 pharma companies worldwide, are American.
What I don't get, is the overwhelming belief by so many people, that all needs are considered rights. We have a right to exist, and try to continue existing. That's it.
Unfortunately, the US does dominate in medical innovation both in techniques and equipment. Whats more, European healthcare systems that you keep trumpeting aren't like the NHS at all, and it shows.
yes I am aware of that. But it's not a completely free market solution to healthcare is it?
America's free market solution to healthcare results in very poor results for the money. It's far a more expensive system than where the state manages the majority healthcare
If a system like America's which relies heavily on the "free market" produces such poor results (America is ranked the 72nd of 191 countries for level of health. by the World Health Organization) then why use it, it.doesn't.work.
Right, and we have no choice in the UK with the NHS. There is no private healthcare in the UK. You can't get a second opinion even if you are on the NHS. Note, I'm being uttlerly sarcastic here, obviously we have choice, and a state health care system.
I note you are still unable to provide an example of me of using the phrase 'morally elitist'. Or even explain what you ment by that.
can you also explain what you mean by 'socialist'.
No, we dont have a choice, we pay for the NHS directly out of our wages every month, regardless of if we want to use it or not.
Just because you have a painfully naive superficial understanding of the topic, doesn't mean im going to waste my time argueing semantics. Your morally elitist because you believe your notions of collectivisation are inhrently superior to opposing moral outlooks.
If you want to know what a socialist is, use a dictionary. Come back to me when you have a point.
bless, you used the word, yet *you* can't provide a definition of what *you* mean by it. I didn't ask for what the definition of it is (because I know that), I asked for what YOU thought it meant.
If you have private health insurance you'd be paying for it every month, irrespective of wether you'd be using it or not.
You've convientiently ignored pertinent and relevant points.
Like if a 'free market' system like in US is so good, why is it so expensive, and provide such poor results....
One thing you might like to consider is that one of the pushes towards the welfare state in the UK was that in the Boer war, a huge percentage of people signing up to fight were medically unfit due to poverty. That's the result of a completely 'free market' approach to health
It's rather hilarious, i've shown your naive opinion to be quite inadequate and now the only way you can fulfill your juvenile sense of satisfaction is complaining about spelling.
You just don't get that 'socialism' (which you are as yet unable to define) produces far better healthcare results (read up on the healthcare systems of the top ranked for HC countires in the world), produces far better and cheaper results in the area of 'healthcare' than the market (which the US HC system is based on, with doctors/hospitals running as private businesses, prices set by the market etc).
that's the cold hard facts intellectually challenged boy.
As I said before (you obviously have difficulty with reading or comprehension, can I suggest you take an English GCSE at evening class, it might help)... I'm asking what *you* think it means.
Many people understandably do choose to use private healthcare, although they still have to pay for the NHS. I don't really see where your going with that one...
You don't seem to realise that a proper state healh care system doesn't eliminate choice.
P.S. I think you'll find that it's 'some' rather than 'many'. You said "socialism" (although you don't seem actually able to explain what you mean by that) prevents choice...
If your not prepared to spend even five minutes incresing your sparse knowledge, im not prepared to waste my time discussing irrelevancies because you fail to grasp the issue.
Costs - in Korea - were very reasonable. Sure, for a heart op you might pay $50k, but you can get it tomorrow. For small stuff, it is subsidised by the state and quite cheap. XRay - $15. CT Scan I had, $300 - immediate. I was very impressed with service in Korea.
I would agree with him 100% except that at the end, he isn't factoring in that the objective of the Communist Democritters on Capitol Hill is to make all of the American People equally impoverished.
Funny thing is, you don't realise that most of the developed world sees the US as a bit of a joke.
If you had any idea about politics and economics, you'd know what you just wrote is idiotic, but i guess you get most of your education from Glenn Beck and Fox News right? lol
"he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
However, the previous section allows for those powers, thus this amendment does not apply.
It says Congress can impose taxes for the purpose of welfare. Healthcare is welfare and thus the constitution allows the imposing of taxes to pay for it.
2nd part. Read first reply' Health care is not welfare. Only you progressives try to apply it. authors of the Constitution disagree
''With respect to the two words general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." James Madison
Also take into account I haven't yet declared which side I support. You told me to look at those articles and I am merely responding with what I can see.
Consider this my learning experience on the American constitution - I am sure you have gathered I am not American :)
Evidently there are more differences between our two nations than I thought... Clearly you not only see welfare as something different but you don't like the poor... interesting
Sir people must be very clear on the issues about which they speak before they speak. Regardless if you are an American or not when discussing Health Care.
I humbly have to say that I just thought your version of our Constitution was very wrong and felt compelled to point it out.
saying I don't care for the poor is absurd and silly. Shame on you for even suggesting that. Once again that is a progressive, liberal attack. I pay more into charity than most.
As I was about to write on your previous comment, this is a learning experience. I am using Wikipedia for the Constitution articles because I do not know the American constitution.
I am questioning you because it might help learn something about it in relation to this debate.
My version is the version of wikipedia and if you look the quotes are the same, excluding the addition at the end of mine.
I haven't attacked you once. I am giving questions to receive answers.
O and P.S.You are completely quoting Article 1 section 8 wrong.
It's says and I quote from my pocket Constitution ''The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, impost, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the U.S.''
so as you can see your ''version'' of that passage is clearly different than what it actually says and means.
beat around the bush all you want. You know your wrong.
Wouldnt the US system be improved if the patients could not sue the pants off any healh provider if any thing goes wrong. It must add enormously to the costs. Just a bit more trust all round. I suppose it cannot be changed
yes it would be vastly improved. As it is now doctors practice preventive medicine in fear of being sued. And it's what raises a lot of the cost.
It's called Tort reform here in the U.S. and it's been proposed by many people in Congress. But the Democrats and President are opposed to it and don't want anything to do with it because they have the lawyers backing them.
They could do Tort Reform, offer tax credits, enable people to buy across state lines. but they say no. it's all about power
That is one thing that will get the doctors leaving, the fear of legal suits against doctors means they have to have insurance and often practise 'defensive medicine'. Google ;Defensive Medicine' and see how that screws up the American system.
I believe there is a section in the constitution that explains what legislation can get passed by the congress so every act of "general welfare" and "common defense" still has to pass this section's constitutionality test. Its the reason why the same section spells out what kind of armed forces we can have so if common defense was equally permissive as general welfare then their should be no reason to have specific text describing what kind of armed forces the federal govt can have.
mmmm.....Notice he only says 'choice and competition pushes UP standards for everybody..'. what about pushing down the price? In a true Free Market choice and competition ALWAYS brings down prices so even poor people find them reasonable and affordable. (Not the private healthcare market run by INSURANCE companies - they should not even be in healthcare. Their job is to Assess Risk, not be a middle man between the Dr and patient that earns billions). I smell a rat waiting to enter Boomtown.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Of course he isnt a traitor to you, you live in the US. In the UK (and every other developed country) free health service is prided as a right. There is 99%+ support for the existance of our NHS and he is betraying my country by lying like this overseas for his own personal political gain. You cannot judge, you're not from the UK. I can, he is a traitor.
Leave aside the fact that he pushes for decentralisation and greater democratic control. Leave aside the fact that he recently gave up his job in the Conservative Party as spokesman for Legal Affairs on the principle that the British people should have a referendum on the EU if and when the Conservatives attain power, and there was nothing of the sort in the agenda of the next Tory government. No, he is a traitor because he argued pursuasively against the NHS in America, doing no harm to anyone.
What about all the people that would have died if he were more pursuasive from being denied treatment, no wait let me guess, they deserve to die for not working hard enough?
You don't have to do harm to betray your nation. I'm fine with him putting out his extremist views in the European Parliament but going on American TV to lie about the state of our country and to embarrass his homeland is the line.
But who is he betraying? Who is he embarrassing (apart from maybe David Cameron - maybe)? He's already made it abundantly clear that his views are unrepresentative of general pulic opinion. I don't think I detected a lie in what he said - maybe I missed it. If you were to pay attention to the reasoning behind his arguments, maybe you wouldn't think of him as an extremist. Hannan is a conviction politician and we certainly need more of those.
hahahahahahahahahahaha .... you think he's not getting a nice fat cheque from various health insurance companies in the US for this? hahahahahahahahahahahaha 'a conviction politician' ahahahaahahaha... sorry got to have a lie down ....
er... YEAH. But then again I have watched and read about this guy to judge him a bit better than you, who only has the context of his NHS comments, for some reason. Go read his blog, visit his youtube page, or watch any interview with him not NHS-related, and maybe you will understand him a bit better.
I've just had a look at his telegraph blog thingy. Interesting contradictions like being pro freedom but not pro drug liberalism. He'a Rand fan, as well. Interesting because Rand is a terrible writer, and philosopher.
Given that many of the UK advocates of extreme free marketism when they were in power in the UK under Thatcherism used privatisation to greatly enrich themselves, I think it's highly likely that he's been payed alot of money to do this NHS bashing.
Let' have the whole country suffer with a terrible healthcare system, just so naive socialists like yourself can fulfill your warped sense of moral elitism.
'moral elitism'? do you actually know what that means? Can you tell me how I've been "morally elitist?'.
The fact of the matter is that the US gets a very bad deal on health care.
Why does no other first world country has a healthcare system like it, preferring more 'socialistic' ones.
You also may like to think of the high infant mortality rate (higher than Cuba), but then again the Right are hypocrites caring far more for the the unborn child, rather than the born, or being born child.
Do you honestly think that he was naive enough to believe that arguing against the NHS anywhere would make him popular? He is standing up for his own beliefs. He spoke in America because he was popular there after his youtube success and they wanted to interview him. Before then, though, he was relatively unnoticed by the British media, being not only a backbencher, but an MEP. He tried to communicate his views to anyone who would listen - wrote books on democracy and how to reform the system.
Nice one, you initiated the 'baseless insult followed by a stormout' technique early on. If you want to know, and I suspect you don't, the backbencher comment was because Hannan refers to himself as a backbencher. It is more a general statement about where he falls in the political spectrum than an actual statement describing his position, which it isn't. But seriously, nice going. That technique work for you in everyday life?
Let's imagine that the UK was about to have a referendum on whether to become communist or stay capitalist. Now imagine an American travels across to our country and starts saying things like "I wouldn't wish freedom on anyone." "Freedom in America has completely failed" "American freedom is so terrible I wish I wasn't a citizen".
That man would be betraying his country, similarly I am offended by Mr. Hannan's traitorous behavior.
That is an absurd comparison. besides, if the American actually argues, i.e. puts some logical force behind his points, I see no reason why he couldn't. And I've already explained about why you heard Hannan's views in America first - not for lack of trying here. I ask you again - who is he betraying?
I'm an American living in the UK for 12 years now and I assure you that there are many people in this country tired of the socialism rammed down their throats since school and the excessive government control over their lives. Bad new for you, there are many "traitors" like Hannan in your midst.
The government in Britain doesn't detriment my life at all, it enriches it. I have had an excellent education, free healthcare and a secure life all as a result of effective government intervention. And I will be happy to contribute my way in taxes to support that system.
I know of HARDLY ANY Brits who are dissatisfied with the idea of the NHS.
I am pleased that you are happy in your life and in your circumstances. I know of many people who share your views.
I hear many points of view in my line of work, including the one you expressed for yourself. However, not everyone shares your contentment.
You may sing the praises of government planning, whereas others see it as meddling. If you are happy with that, then great, but don't assume others to be. -- You only notice the wall when you want to escape.
99% support? what are you smoking.. look at all the polls from your country....the public support for the NHS is way down...stop kidding yourself. You are not fooling anyone. I have polls from daily mail among others...They don't agree with you one bit.
Tyranny knows no bounds..Therefor I conclude Brown and his blind supports are traitors. We fought the British and declared our independence over stuff similar to our current Health Care. It's modern Tyranny. We should unite under Conservatism.
Also, though I am generalising based on your comment "We fought the British and declared our independence over stuff similar to our current Health Care" I suggest you learn your history...
If you fought Britain alone you would have failed miserably... I love American patriotism "We fought and beat the British" - Oh how flawed.
The Colonist fought the British during the Revolutionary war over excessive taxes, illegal and unjust laws among many other things..
The aspects of the current Health Care bill are just that in many regards. Costing over 1 trillion dollars. They will fine/tax people who don't get govt. approved health care and it's Unconstitutional. Read Article 1 section 8. and then amendment 10 of the Constitution.
Actually it is you who miss the point. I wasn't mentioning Health care, merely the false American history.
I looked at the constitution and it reads: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Technically, no, It has, I believe rightfully, said that "American did not win the War of American Independence, Britain lost it." Many people in Britain and in the British government supported the same principles the Americans were fighting for, Pitt for example.
Here's an interesting point, Why was Cornwallis a brilliant general before and after the war, but incompetent during it?
The issue boils down to personal fiscal responsibility - Americans don't have any; America can't be great and be a socialist country - it's freedom or socialism; make a choice - be free or be Uncle Sam's bitch.
Unfortunately, what it means is it hands lower quality doctors to the poor, but that's the nature of the beast.
I have always believed healthcare should have been a natural right, but the right of freedom of choice over rides that. The medical profession was put into the private sector and the private sector did what it always does - took over the nationalised version for quality. Hospitals are left unclean because cleaners are not given enough time. My father spent his last days in old church!
I agree, constructive discussion and debate is preferable. However, socialists have a tendency to twist words and alter perceptions so that what they say and propose may not be recognised as socialist. Therefore those that do call it for what it is. If you suggest socialist policies as a means for health care reform, then the debate must change gears and the topic becomes whether or not socialist policies work better than the current system and if so, then better for whom.
I think pointing out the truth is needed in the current enviroment. I'm tired of holding my tounge with these people when they talk becuase they feel free to call us every name in the book but we can't call them communist?
The thing is, most of Europe now has a public health care system and does anyone describe our governments as socialist?
The word socialist has been developed by the US media as a tool of fear, just look at some of the idiotic responses on here. Corporations run by men like Murdoch strive to keep the status quo, whereby they make a lot of profit without a fair system for ordinary citizens to live their lives. In a developed country, a totally private healthcare system is shameful and disgusting.
U.S. Congressman Paul Broun [R-GA], M.D., recently gave a very good example of the effects of Government intrusion:
"Congress passed a bill called CLIA, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act, which outlawed mine as well as every doctor's lab in the country. Prior to CLIA, I would do a complete blood count (CBC) in 5 minutes, for 12 bucks. CLIA shut my lab down. I had to send patients over to the hospital across the way. It then took 2 to 3 hours and cost $75 for one test. "
D. Hannan: "Since WWII, most of these other things have been undone but we're left with one outstanding bit of war planning... a HCS funded wholly out of taxation."
The 1st central planning that WWII left is the Bretton Woods system later reconvened into a floating currency regime, which is still an inflationary system pegged to dollar reserves.
It is the major reason for increasing medical costs, notwithstanding the fact of private insurance being cheaper than mandated public insurance.
Sweden is the model that all developed countries should strive to achieve. It is no surprise that the Scandinavian countries come out top in measures of happiness every year.
if the american people allow their heath care system to be taken over by the federal government, it will be yet another step on the slippery slope towards despotism. For anyone that disagrees, ask yourself a question. Why would the government be taking the actions necessary to a federally run health care system when there are examples of its failure all over the world? Same as gun control, the UK and Australia tried strict controls and the crime rates increased.....same will happen here.
Countries with universal health care: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom
Remind me... which one of these has a despotic regime in power?
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?
are you blind or just ignorant? Lets see if TheNewHorn is smart enough to put 2 and 2 together: FEMA camps, a civilian army, tightening restrictions on the ability of the masses to grow their own food, a battle-hardened battalion stationed in the united states, constant bashing of the constitution by the government, a takeover of the mousing market by the government, maintaining a war which the majority of the masses do not support.......and of course federally run health care all at once. THINK
If I might ask if you live in any of these countries? I do. How do you define a despotic regime? Are we talking Hitler's Germany or Communist Russia? Or are we talking about a more subtle despotism where people are as free as the government allows? Or one where the people have so accepted vast degrees of government control over their lives that they cannot even conceive of a different system? You don't notice the fence till either you walk into it or it starts to constrict.
@TheNewHorn Freedom is not merely limited by the lack of democratic forms,but by the way the state uses laws and the tax code to fashion a society which precludes choices which otherwise might occur such as when gov't prevent one from buying insurance across state lines or when antitrust laws keep small businesses from joining together to buy health insurance at the cheaper rates available only to big business.Freedom comes only when even democratic gov'ts are kept from meddling with our lives.
No dumb Yank for profit HMO can touch the NHS.
Danian Hannan go peddle your snake oil elsewhere.
genYprogressive83 3 weeks ago
WWII enriched the munitions industry while impoverishing all nations.
War is a racket.
American General Smedley Butler, a multiple recipient of the Medal of Honour, said it was. No doubt it will always continue to be so unless we stop our governments from going to war at the drop of a hat.
paulrprichard 7 months ago
This YT link will tell you all you need to know about the current US health care system thats in place... watch?v=cdTzVW9fggY
jk2008jk 1 year ago
Surely, providing free health care for everyone including the rich, poor, homeless, good and evil should be a moral responsibility for everyone. If you don't think it is, should we also privatise the police service, fire department and armed forces. If you are happy to help pay for your country's wars, have a little heart and help pay for its health.
Aaarrrrgh 1 year ago
he is a cunt hang him the NHS is great
kevinkards1 1 year ago
he is a tratior a scumbag he wants use to become like america we do not want bloodsuckers like the american insureance
kevinkards1 1 year ago
@kevinkards1 Try from about 2:18. You just proved his point.
Astbruchgefahr 1 year ago
@kevinkards1 insurance i pay in cash
kubaniski 1 year ago
@kevinkards1 Typical lynch-mob mentality by the un-educated far-left. You need to educate yourself on the subject before just ranting nonsense.
matrix4022 1 year ago
@kevinkards1 Then learn to insure yourselves like the Fench, Germans or even better the Swiss before you are a 'customer' in Europe's worst health lack of service.
parabat7 11 months ago
who is this joker?
03copeda 1 year ago
What a 24 carat cock.
fizzer40 1 year ago
The NHS? It is one. ;)
Moragauth 1 year ago
You know why there are no problems with veterinary?? Because this is a private sector.
Janusz Korwin Mikke- polish candidate for presidency
MichalRakowski 1 year ago 3
It would be awesome if the left would stop using World War II as it's historical excuse to engage in social engineering....
TheAntiCrat 1 year ago
individual single payer system not government controlled bureaucracy!!
i'm sure michael moore means well but he's wrong!
gsgrl2000 1 year ago
Nearly 45% of our health care is paid for by the government. So we are far from free market health care. The real problem is third parties, which constitutes ~90% of our health care. There are no incentives for patients to spend less money & shop around. There are no market factors causing doctors to lower prices and compete in pricing.
High deductible insurance policies combined with tax-free HSAs would lower health care costs and increase quality of care people are receiving.
printo69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bureacracy is a dirty word for this man, taxes dirty, typical right wing twat, don't like taxes ! Live in a third world country then! Government is a bad thing, live in a country without one !
Indul1 2 years ago
We can afford the NHS as well...The same right wing people who say we should leave the EU because we are very wealthy say we can not afford the NHS !...Do the logic and maths on that...They are ways we can improve it such as moving from expensive hospital care (that is why the NHS bill is big) but we are now moving towards specialised care that are also better for a patients...Believe in the NHS.....
Indul1 2 years ago
America during the 1800s was a perfect example of where your strawman argument falls apart. High real GDP growth, no inflation, cost of living decreases throughout the century. Enjoy your devalued sovereign debt rating and the bankrupted NHS.
julebuggy 2 years ago 8
1800's ? No freedom either, especially if you were a black african slave..How is the NHS bankrupted? As for the debt rating...I'am no fan of current policy but i believe in a welfare state and good fiscal policies to achieve it....
Indul1 2 years ago
I support Hannan on most things; but he's talking out of his arse here.
The NHS needs streamlined reform, but it's hardly a threat to liberty and all-in-all it's something I'm glad to have.
BattleMagic 2 years ago 2
Private Insurance Company profit is ONLY 2-3% in USA.
3martijns 2 years ago
Thanks, Dan the Man. You are Spot-On.
3martijns 2 years ago
explain why the US is 37th in the world for healthcare and the UK is 18th in the world then?
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
That ranking is due to several factors - a cultural distrust of doctors by some due to historical factors, a higher accident or murder or suicide rate among certain groups, lifestyle choices for smoking or drugs or booze, the poor avoiding prenatal care, or the many that wait until they have advanced disease to see a doctor.
3martijns 2 years ago
really? and the UK doesn't have similar lifestyle 'issues', no 'binge drinking' problem in the UK, no entrenched use of tobacco in Scotland and parts of the north, highest percentages of drug use, and hard drug use in the whole of the EU?
The fact of the matter is that the US performs badly no matter how you try to square it. It's shamefully worse than Cuba when it comes to infant mortality.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
@ohmyliver01
Cuba doesn't count a death as infant mortality until the child has been alive for several days, weeks even. The manner in which data is gathered is unfavorable and misleading to say the least. Cuba, in reality, is a sorry excuse for a third world nations attempt at healthcare. What the nation releases gives it a positive spin, but in reality, I'd rather try and treat myself living in America than go through what the average Joe suffers in Cuba.
PlasmaSnake 1 year ago
mikey moorie LIES.
USA congress is ignoring the FACT that MOST VOTERS DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTHCARE.
those who DO want it are IGNORANT of how BAD it will be.
3martijns 2 years ago
can't be worse than the current system... costs double what the NHS costs, and delivers healthcare which puts the US 19 countries behind the UK in health provision.
if you did some research into healthcare rather than listening to talk radio perhaps you'd have a more reality based opinion
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
The higher cost is due to the need for tort reform - doctors order extra tests as a defense against a possible lawsuit, and have to pay up to $200,000 per year for liability insurance.
Health insurance here is NOT expensive, but millions choose to NOT buy it because they want to spend their money on EXPENSIVE things.
I've been an RN for many years, so MAYBE I know what I'm talking about??
3martijns 2 years ago
I'm sorry. I assumed due to your odd use of CAPITALS within SENTANCES, sorry again.
Surely if Doctors/Hospital groups/etc are run as private businesses designed to maximise the profit then the public have a right to sue for malpractice.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
EXACTLY, but TRIAL lawyers OWN the DEMOCRATS, so there is ZERO tort reform in their health reform bill NOW, but the REPUBLICANS have a SIMPLE 10 point plan that is cost NEUTRAL.
3martijns 2 years ago
can you please start using CAPITALS like a normal person.
Surely the thing that would truly sort things would be the government running things like hospitals and doctors etc rather than them being run as private profit making businesses.
you know, like how it's done in the top countries in the world for health provision. I'm just going by the evidence, here. It works.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
A normal person uses capitals for emphasis, since so many comments are misunderstood, but I will stop, since it bothers you so much.
I'm glad that all the words in your last message were spelled correctly.
Free enterprise system works much better than socialism, which increases taxes and dependence.
Americans love their freedoms.
Bye - going to workout, swim, jacuzzi.
3martijns 2 years ago
No, no it doesn't work 'better'.
The evidence clearly shows that socialism works better for healthcare... have a look at the top 10 countries ranked for healthcare.
Are you really saying people in Spain, Italy, and France for example don't have freedom? You can still be free, and have a public health system managed by the state (with a private option for those who want to pay extra). That's how it works in all the top rated countries for healthcare.
do some research, please.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
I was AFRAID that would happen - as soon as I STOP using CAPS, you FORGET ALL that I wrote.
I've been DOING RESEARCH since BEFORE you were BORN. It's been part of my JOB for MANY years.
I treat patients from all over the WORLD who come HERE to get the BEST healthcare. Just ONE example: DEATH rates from CANCER here are the LOWEST in the world.
I only pay about 25% of my salary for ALL TAXES, due to IRA and INSURANCE costs being deducted BEFORE TAXES are calculated.
GOODBYE. GO WORK.
3martijns 2 years ago
Do you mind not being quite so patronising. YOU are the one who HASN'T ENGAGED with my POINTS. Yes the US has the best rate for survival from cancer, but for other things it's out performed by such economic powerhouses (I'm being ironic) as, um, Cuba.
You should your ideological blinkers, and look at the evidence with an open mind, rather than with your mind made up before hand.
P.S. I pay 22% tax and get the NHS, I win ;-)
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
It's called morality you fool. You cannot hold a gun to some people heads and make them pay for the good of others.
CapitalistPhil 2 years ago 12
@CapitalistPhil
Good point. Socialism in many regards is a quasi religion, and when you have a socialist party in power you essentially have policies written around their particular view of morality and the hierarchy of value.
Traditionally the povery problem was solved by logical development, charity and most importantly, the free market which has obviously allowed people of even modest wealth to have an extremely high quality of life with the latest technological luxuries.
cidseven 1 year ago
you know that 75% of people bankrupted by medical costs in the US have health insurance?
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
The fault in your argument is that you set up a straw man just in order to demolish it .. No large industrial democracy has a ' free market ' in healthcare. All have socialised systems in which state funding is the major component. Neither Dan Hannen nor anyone else as far as I know is suggesting getting rid of it & I suspect it would not even be possible.
.
tincoffin 2 years ago
The US uses the market to determine pricing, and the entities within the US healthcare system act as private businesses. It doesn't matter if the US government (state + local) is the largest customer, it's about as free market as you can get for a large industrial democracy.
and this provides expensive bad results... for all it's faults the NHS costs 1/2 the amount of the US system, and provides better service. That's why the WHO ranks the UK at 18 for healthcare, and the US 37. .
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
Just take a trip to the vet that will give you an idea of what it would be like without an NHS and while you are there get that arsehole Hannan put down
chitlika 2 years ago
It's funny how all the top countries for healthcare (using the World Health Organisation statistics) are *all* socialised healthcare systems.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
Well tell me which ones arent? Even in America nearly 50% of healthcare is paid by the state.
tincoffin 2 years ago
well, 34% is paid by the central government, and 11% by local government.
The key difference is that doctors/hospitals groups/etc are private businesses. Prices are also privately regulated by the market. Where as in in the top performing countries they aren't.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
The problem in the US seems to be the enormous cost of healthcare. You simply want to dump the whole thing on the taxpayer. No attempt to reform the present system which you blame on the market. the problems with the US system arise from bad laws , the excessive cost of legal liability and that it is an insurance based scheme (who worries about costs when someone else is paying). You must reform this before even considering another countries flawed system.
tincoffin 2 years ago
I'd agree that there needs to be legal liability reform.
it's the other countries like France, Spain, Italy, etc which do pay for it through direct taxation, and the government operates large parts of the healthcare system, which provide THE best healthcare in the world. That's the model the US should be aspiring to.
I blame it on the market because it is mostly to blame. The legal liability issue would be easier to fix if the hospital groups/doctors weren't run as private businesses.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
I notice that you do not mention the UK . A country in which government expenditure on the NHS has risen by 6% year on year and yet productivity has actually declined!The extra costs going into salaries.You must reform before spending money.Isnt that what legislators are for.
tincoffin 2 years ago
no, no I didn't.
The main problem with the NHS has been the rise of a very expensive layer of middle management. This was a product of Thatcherism, and Thatcherismlite (as Nu Labour is).
Yes, but reform must push it away from such expensive rubbish as PPI (privatisation by the back door) and towards the continental European model. Which is socialised, is mostly government controlled, minimizes the market, and more importantly provides the best healthcare in the world.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
And what mechanism exists to get rid of these middle managers (who now outnumber doctors) ?
tincoffin 2 years ago
Legislative reform. With a key guarantee that levels of doctors/nurses aren't going to be also cut.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
Meanwhile in the private sector managers are having to be sacked.
tincoffin 2 years ago
Your point?
We've already seen that, going by results, health care is best handled in a socialised, government controlled way.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
why do we still have it 60 years on. Because it so popular that it would be political suicide for any UK party to get rid of it. Simple fact. Why do you think the UK Conservative party are trying to distance themselves from this payed shrill (how much is he getting from US insurance companies for this garbage).
The fact of the matter is that UK health care is slightly better overall than US healthcare yet costs half the amount.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
The UK health service is 18th in the world . Would you feel proud if you had the 18th best football team in the world?
tincoffin 2 years ago
The US health service is 37st in the world.
It's also worse for infant mortality than Cuba. I find it deeply ironic that the Right in the US cares more for the unborn child than the child in childbirth....
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
gah, that's 37th... not 37st. Obviously.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
This extremist nutter is a vile evil patronising bastard
bnparenaziscum 2 years ago 3
Why don't this guy call himself a Latino? He's a Latino. Is the European Union the Celtic Empire reformed?
Wakeupyousheeple 2 years ago
Ah Daniel Hannan, the definition of political rentboy. He needs to stick to appearing on Fox News, his idiocy and lack of class don't stand out so much over there.
moleyhtfc 2 years ago
Hannan once again effortlessly proves what a complete out touch buffoon he is. My favourite part has to be where he says that people would have a different view of the NHS if theyve lived abroad! Of course, now is the perfect time for people to take advantage of the economic downturn to sell their house, up sticks and move to America for a year Ive heard its the land of opportunities! Perhaps Hannan should subsidise the NHS by selling the massive silver spoon stuck up his arse.
Jimmytwoshakes 2 years ago
He is 100% right. In countries I have lived in outside the UK there were no queues. You could have an operation within a week, after consultations. The UK needs to wake up.
rupertmja1 2 years ago
And may I ask, how much did it cost?
It is well documented, healthcare in the US is less efficient and serves only a fraction of the population. It's frankly disgusting that the wealthiest nation in the world is not civilised enough to provide universal healthcare.
jamesytaylor1 2 years ago
The US has not been the wealthiest nation in a number of years... We are the largest debtors in the history of the world.
If the US healthcare system is less efficient that many other socialized health care systems, then why do all of the significant medical advancements happen in the US?
HarrisonCountyStudio 2 years ago
Im sorry, but in case you didn't realise GDP is the actual measure of wealth these days. Maybe the debt you've accrued invading middle eastern countries might start having an impact on that income, but its generally agreed that the USA is the richest country in the world.
Secondly, there is a difference between medical discoveries and actual treatment. Have a look at where the biggest pharmaceutical companies are based: Bayer - Germany, Glaxosmithkline - UK, etc. i.e. NOT IN THE US
jamesytaylor1 2 years ago
It's not just invading the middle east. It's the cost of us policing the world; Bases in 131 countries.
You may calculate wealth by your country's GDP, but the individual doesn't care what that number is. It's what one can save from their own devises.
Medical advancements happen in the US because of the environment to produce these products. Once the government changes the rules there will be less demand. Companies and smart people will flock to what ever island of Freedom that is left.
HarrisonCountyStudio 2 years ago
Please tell me then, why 6 out of the largest 8 pharmeceutical industries are based in countries with public healthcare. Medical advancements are dependent on a private/public sector they are dependent on the wealth and intelligence of the nation.
Oh, and are you talking about GDP per capita (per person). Because yeh, the US has the highest of that aswell funnily enough.
jamesytaylor1 2 years ago
4 out of those 6 are very old companies, or new mergers of very old companies, that were formed well before socialized medicine was all the rage, and their infrastructure is to well emplaced to be moved. Let's expand that list a bit, shall we? Of the top 12 pharmaceutical companies, 6 of them are in the U.S.. Of the top 17, 9 are in America. My, that's over half of them.
The simple fact of the matter is, research and development in all fields, including healthcare, runs on an ability to profit.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
Yes but the top 8 are where the big discoveries are made mate. Glaxosmithkline in particular make a wide range of discoveries in different fields every year, and are based in the UK.
Of course I don't deny that healthcare probably does need an element of market forces. However this should not compromise the fact that every citizens should have a right to a healthy life. You seem to ignore the fact that a healthy population actually has a positive externality on the wider economy.
jamesytaylor1 2 years ago
As I stated, in response to your point about 6 of the top 8 big pharma companies being in countries with socialized medicine, the one you cite is a relatively recent merger of very old companies, created before your NHS was ever conceived. Of course I never did mention, that the top 2 pharma companies worldwide, are American.
What I don't get, is the overwhelming belief by so many people, that all needs are considered rights. We have a right to exist, and try to continue existing. That's it.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
Unfortunately, the US does dominate in medical innovation both in techniques and equipment. Whats more, European healthcare systems that you keep trumpeting aren't like the NHS at all, and it shows.
smoochym 2 years ago
European healthcare systems are mostly socialistic ones.... you do realise that don't you....
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
Yes, but they are not nationalised mandatory monopolies. Many services are carried out by private companies with public insureance money.
You do realize that don't you?
smoochym 2 years ago
yes I am aware of that. But it's not a completely free market solution to healthcare is it?
America's free market solution to healthcare results in very poor results for the money. It's far a more expensive system than where the state manages the majority healthcare
If a system like America's which relies heavily on the "free market" produces such poor results (America is ranked the 72nd of 191 countries for level of health. by the World Health Organization) then why use it, it.doesn't.work.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
A free markets system doesn't perpetuate Insurance monopolies.
smoochym 2 years ago
It's called choice, something that socialists don't seem to understand.
smoochym 2 years ago
Right, and we have no choice in the UK with the NHS. There is no private healthcare in the UK. You can't get a second opinion even if you are on the NHS. Note, I'm being uttlerly sarcastic here, obviously we have choice, and a state health care system.
I note you are still unable to provide an example of me of using the phrase 'morally elitist'. Or even explain what you ment by that.
can you also explain what you mean by 'socialist'.
or are you not able to answer that either.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
No, we dont have a choice, we pay for the NHS directly out of our wages every month, regardless of if we want to use it or not.
Just because you have a painfully naive superficial understanding of the topic, doesn't mean im going to waste my time argueing semantics. Your morally elitist because you believe your notions of collectivisation are inhrently superior to opposing moral outlooks.
If you want to know what a socialist is, use a dictionary. Come back to me when you have a point.
smoochym 2 years ago
bless, you used the word, yet *you* can't provide a definition of what *you* mean by it. I didn't ask for what the definition of it is (because I know that), I asked for what YOU thought it meant.
If you have private health insurance you'd be paying for it every month, irrespective of wether you'd be using it or not.
You really aren't that bright are you.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
"You really aren't that bright are you. "
Im not the one who doesn't understand the meaning of moral elitism or socialism.
smoochym 2 years ago
hahahaha... you're just the one who can't explain what he means by the words he uses.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
I know what it means, your the one asking for the definition. Just like you didn't understand the meaning of moral elitism.
smoochym 2 years ago
Your trying to gain some laughable sense of superiority by impliying I don't know the meaning of a word.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could think of a pertinent and relevant point?
smoochym 2 years ago
You've convientiently ignored pertinent and relevant points.
Like if a 'free market' system like in US is so good, why is it so expensive, and provide such poor results....
One thing you might like to consider is that one of the pushes towards the welfare state in the UK was that in the Boer war, a huge percentage of people signing up to fight were medically unfit due to poverty. That's the result of a completely 'free market' approach to health
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
The system in the US isn't free market, nor was it in England at the time of the Boer war.
Please don't assume things if you don't understand.
smoochym 2 years ago
explain why they aren't/weren't.
Which country in the world operates on a 'free market' healthcare system?
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
p.s. I notice down below you confuse your, and you're. If you mean you are, use 'you're' the apostophy denotes the fusing of the words you and are
happy to help.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
Ah spelling, the last refuge of a terrible argument.
smoochym 2 years ago
It's rather hilarious, i've shown your naive opinion to be quite inadequate and now the only way you can fulfill your juvenile sense of satisfaction is complaining about spelling.
My work here is done.
smoochym 2 years ago
bless, delusional too!.
You just don't get that 'socialism' (which you are as yet unable to define) produces far better healthcare results (read up on the healthcare systems of the top ranked for HC countires in the world), produces far better and cheaper results in the area of 'healthcare' than the market (which the US HC system is based on, with doctors/hospitals running as private businesses, prices set by the market etc).
that's the cold hard facts intellectually challenged boy.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
"If you have private health insurance you'd be paying for it every month, irrespective of wether you'd be using it or not."
So why pay for two?
Becuase your so "bright"?
smoochym 2 years ago
Unfortunately for you, im not a teacher, so unless you want to pay me im not going to give you the basic education that you so desperately need.
smoochym 2 years ago
yeah, yeah, big man.
As I said before (you obviously have difficulty with reading or comprehension, can I suggest you take an English GCSE at evening class, it might help)... I'm asking what *you* think it means.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
Many people understandably do choose to use private healthcare, although they still have to pay for the NHS. I don't really see where your going with that one...
smoochym 2 years ago
You don't seem to realise that a proper state healh care system doesn't eliminate choice.
P.S. I think you'll find that it's 'some' rather than 'many'. You said "socialism" (although you don't seem actually able to explain what you mean by that) prevents choice...
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
If your not prepared to spend even five minutes incresing your sparse knowledge, im not prepared to waste my time discussing irrelevancies because you fail to grasp the issue.
smoochym 2 years ago
I think you are confusing the words "able" and "prepaired" in your last sentance.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
Costs - in Korea - were very reasonable. Sure, for a heart op you might pay $50k, but you can get it tomorrow. For small stuff, it is subsidised by the state and quite cheap. XRay - $15. CT Scan I had, $300 - immediate. I was very impressed with service in Korea.
rupertmja1 2 years ago
I found him on facebook and became a fan
jeffreymharmon 2 years ago
Daniel Hannan will be lucky if he gets voted back in after his views on the NHS.
The people want the NHS.
kromed01 2 years ago
I would agree with him 100% except that at the end, he isn't factoring in that the objective of the Communist Democritters on Capitol Hill is to make all of the American People equally impoverished.
EEPIIFFAANNY 2 years ago
Funny thing is, you don't realise that most of the developed world sees the US as a bit of a joke.
If you had any idea about politics and economics, you'd know what you just wrote is idiotic, but i guess you get most of your education from Glenn Beck and Fox News right? lol
jamesytaylor1 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Amendment 10 says
"he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
However, the previous section allows for those powers, thus this amendment does not apply.
You have no argument.
grantmitch1 2 years ago
It says Congress can impose taxes for the purpose of welfare. Healthcare is welfare and thus the constitution allows the imposing of taxes to pay for it.
In short, the constitution allows it.
grantmitch1 2 years ago 2
It's sad you use the General Welfare Clause as your excuse. That's clearly wrong and is not the case
The Welfare clause only deals with the enumerated powers. and that's it
Jefferson, Madison, And Ben Franklin were asked these very questions back then and they were very clear on it
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798
Perhaps you think the people who also wrote the Constitution are also wrong?
VodkaAce 2 years ago
2nd part. Read first reply' Health care is not welfare. Only you progressives try to apply it. authors of the Constitution disagree
''With respect to the two words general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." James Madison
VodkaAce 2 years ago
Progressive? not a word I often get labelled as.
Also take into account I haven't yet declared which side I support. You told me to look at those articles and I am merely responding with what I can see.
Consider this my learning experience on the American constitution - I am sure you have gathered I am not American :)
Evidently there are more differences between our two nations than I thought... Clearly you not only see welfare as something different but you don't like the poor... interesting
grantmitch1 2 years ago
Sir people must be very clear on the issues about which they speak before they speak. Regardless if you are an American or not when discussing Health Care.
I humbly have to say that I just thought your version of our Constitution was very wrong and felt compelled to point it out.
saying I don't care for the poor is absurd and silly. Shame on you for even suggesting that. Once again that is a progressive, liberal attack. I pay more into charity than most.
VodkaAce 2 years ago
As I was about to write on your previous comment, this is a learning experience. I am using Wikipedia for the Constitution articles because I do not know the American constitution.
I am questioning you because it might help learn something about it in relation to this debate.
My version is the version of wikipedia and if you look the quotes are the same, excluding the addition at the end of mine.
I haven't attacked you once. I am giving questions to receive answers.
grantmitch1 2 years ago
3rd part..
O and P.S.You are completely quoting Article 1 section 8 wrong.
It's says and I quote from my pocket Constitution ''The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, impost, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the U.S.''
so as you can see your ''version'' of that passage is clearly different than what it actually says and means.
beat around the bush all you want. You know your wrong.
VodkaAce 2 years ago
Wouldnt the US system be improved if the patients could not sue the pants off any healh provider if any thing goes wrong. It must add enormously to the costs. Just a bit more trust all round. I suppose it cannot be changed
tincoffin 2 years ago
yes it would be vastly improved. As it is now doctors practice preventive medicine in fear of being sued. And it's what raises a lot of the cost.
It's called Tort reform here in the U.S. and it's been proposed by many people in Congress. But the Democrats and President are opposed to it and don't want anything to do with it because they have the lawyers backing them.
They could do Tort Reform, offer tax credits, enable people to buy across state lines. but they say no. it's all about power
VodkaAce 2 years ago
That is one thing that will get the doctors leaving, the fear of legal suits against doctors means they have to have insurance and often practise 'defensive medicine'. Google ;Defensive Medicine' and see how that screws up the American system.
kromed01 2 years ago
I believe there is a section in the constitution that explains what legislation can get passed by the congress so every act of "general welfare" and "common defense" still has to pass this section's constitutionality test. Its the reason why the same section spells out what kind of armed forces we can have so if common defense was equally permissive as general welfare then their should be no reason to have specific text describing what kind of armed forces the federal govt can have.
timbosforporn 2 years ago
mmmm.....Notice he only says 'choice and competition pushes UP standards for everybody..'. what about pushing down the price? In a true Free Market choice and competition ALWAYS brings down prices so even poor people find them reasonable and affordable. (Not the private healthcare market run by INSURANCE companies - they should not even be in healthcare. Their job is to Assess Risk, not be a middle man between the Dr and patient that earns billions). I smell a rat waiting to enter Boomtown.
NOTAdemocracy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This man is a traitor
TakeFiv3 2 years ago
no he actually has a brain and knows what's going on. Your the only progressive traitor around here
VodkaAce 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Of course he isnt a traitor to you, you live in the US. In the UK (and every other developed country) free health service is prided as a right. There is 99%+ support for the existance of our NHS and he is betraying my country by lying like this overseas for his own personal political gain. You cannot judge, you're not from the UK. I can, he is a traitor.
TakeFiv3 2 years ago
Leave aside the fact that he pushes for decentralisation and greater democratic control. Leave aside the fact that he recently gave up his job in the Conservative Party as spokesman for Legal Affairs on the principle that the British people should have a referendum on the EU if and when the Conservatives attain power, and there was nothing of the sort in the agenda of the next Tory government. No, he is a traitor because he argued pursuasively against the NHS in America, doing no harm to anyone.
zonianfjb 2 years ago
What about all the people that would have died if he were more pursuasive from being denied treatment, no wait let me guess, they deserve to die for not working hard enough?
You don't have to do harm to betray your nation. I'm fine with him putting out his extremist views in the European Parliament but going on American TV to lie about the state of our country and to embarrass his homeland is the line.
TakeFiv3 2 years ago
Your first point was just weird - please explain.
But who is he betraying? Who is he embarrassing (apart from maybe David Cameron - maybe)? He's already made it abundantly clear that his views are unrepresentative of general pulic opinion. I don't think I detected a lie in what he said - maybe I missed it. If you were to pay attention to the reasoning behind his arguments, maybe you wouldn't think of him as an extremist. Hannan is a conviction politician and we certainly need more of those.
zonianfjb 2 years ago
hahahahahahahahahahaha .... you think he's not getting a nice fat cheque from various health insurance companies in the US for this? hahahahahahahahahahahaha 'a conviction politician' ahahahaahahaha... sorry got to have a lie down ....
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
er... YEAH. But then again I have watched and read about this guy to judge him a bit better than you, who only has the context of his NHS comments, for some reason. Go read his blog, visit his youtube page, or watch any interview with him not NHS-related, and maybe you will understand him a bit better.
zonianfjb 2 years ago
I've just had a look at his telegraph blog thingy. Interesting contradictions like being pro freedom but not pro drug liberalism. He'a Rand fan, as well. Interesting because Rand is a terrible writer, and philosopher.
Given that many of the UK advocates of extreme free marketism when they were in power in the UK under Thatcherism used privatisation to greatly enrich themselves, I think it's highly likely that he's been payed alot of money to do this NHS bashing.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
Right...
Let' have the whole country suffer with a terrible healthcare system, just so naive socialists like yourself can fulfill your warped sense of moral elitism.
smoochym 2 years ago
'moral elitism'? do you actually know what that means? Can you tell me how I've been "morally elitist?'.
The fact of the matter is that the US gets a very bad deal on health care.
Why does no other first world country has a healthcare system like it, preferring more 'socialistic' ones.
You also may like to think of the high infant mortality rate (higher than Cuba), but then again the Right are hypocrites caring far more for the the unborn child, rather than the born, or being born child.
ohmyliver01 2 years ago
Do you honestly think that he was naive enough to believe that arguing against the NHS anywhere would make him popular? He is standing up for his own beliefs. He spoke in America because he was popular there after his youtube success and they wanted to interview him. Before then, though, he was relatively unnoticed by the British media, being not only a backbencher, but an MEP. He tried to communicate his views to anyone who would listen - wrote books on democracy and how to reform the system.
zonianfjb 2 years ago
"not only a backbencher, but an MEP"
Nice one you obviously don't know shit about our political system, I'm outta here.
TakeFiv3 2 years ago
Nice one, you initiated the 'baseless insult followed by a stormout' technique early on. If you want to know, and I suspect you don't, the backbencher comment was because Hannan refers to himself as a backbencher. It is more a general statement about where he falls in the political spectrum than an actual statement describing his position, which it isn't. But seriously, nice going. That technique work for you in everyday life?
zonianfjb 2 years ago
The BBC wouldn't interview him, Fox News would, simple as. How do you get from there to traitor?
zonianfjb 2 years ago
Let's imagine that the UK was about to have a referendum on whether to become communist or stay capitalist. Now imagine an American travels across to our country and starts saying things like "I wouldn't wish freedom on anyone." "Freedom in America has completely failed" "American freedom is so terrible I wish I wasn't a citizen".
That man would be betraying his country, similarly I am offended by Mr. Hannan's traitorous behavior.
p.s. A backbencher is an MP, not an MEP.
TakeFiv3 2 years ago
That is an absurd comparison. besides, if the American actually argues, i.e. puts some logical force behind his points, I see no reason why he couldn't. And I've already explained about why you heard Hannan's views in America first - not for lack of trying here. I ask you again - who is he betraying?
zonianfjb 2 years ago
I'm an American living in the UK for 12 years now and I assure you that there are many people in this country tired of the socialism rammed down their throats since school and the excessive government control over their lives. Bad new for you, there are many "traitors" like Hannan in your midst.
EvilDandy 2 years ago 2
What government control?
StrayGator 2 years ago
Lol, been watching Fox News much?
The government in Britain doesn't detriment my life at all, it enriches it. I have had an excellent education, free healthcare and a secure life all as a result of effective government intervention. And I will be happy to contribute my way in taxes to support that system.
I know of HARDLY ANY Brits who are dissatisfied with the idea of the NHS.
jamesytaylor1 2 years ago 2
I am pleased that you are happy in your life and in your circumstances. I know of many people who share your views.
I hear many points of view in my line of work, including the one you expressed for yourself. However, not everyone shares your contentment.
You may sing the praises of government planning, whereas others see it as meddling. If you are happy with that, then great, but don't assume others to be. -- You only notice the wall when you want to escape.
EvilDandy 2 years ago
Yeh, I literally have never met anyone who wishes the NHS wasn't here. Literally no-one.
jamesytaylor1 2 years ago 3
99% support? what are you smoking.. look at all the polls from your country....the public support for the NHS is way down...stop kidding yourself. You are not fooling anyone. I have polls from daily mail among others...They don't agree with you one bit.
Tyranny knows no bounds..Therefor I conclude Brown and his blind supports are traitors. We fought the British and declared our independence over stuff similar to our current Health Care. It's modern Tyranny. We should unite under Conservatism.
VodkaAce 2 years ago
I hope you are not an American.
grantmitch1 2 years ago
I am an American. An American who did three combat tours and an American who actually still believes in our Constitution.
And the majority of Americas actually do feel the way I do. This is modern Tyranny.
Look at the facts for goodness sakes.
VodkaAce 2 years ago
Oh yes how Tyranny of the British...
How dare they build up America...
Also, though I am generalising based on your comment "We fought the British and declared our independence over stuff similar to our current Health Care" I suggest you learn your history...
If you fought Britain alone you would have failed miserably... I love American patriotism "We fought and beat the British" - Oh how flawed.
grantmitch1 2 years ago
Your clearly missing the point and reasoning.
The Colonist fought the British during the Revolutionary war over excessive taxes, illegal and unjust laws among many other things..
The aspects of the current Health Care bill are just that in many regards. Costing over 1 trillion dollars. They will fine/tax people who don't get govt. approved health care and it's Unconstitutional. Read Article 1 section 8. and then amendment 10 of the Constitution.
Get it now?
VodkaAce 2 years ago
Actually it is you who miss the point. I wasn't mentioning Health care, merely the false American history.
I looked at the constitution and it reads: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
See next post...
grantmitch1 2 years ago
Technically, no, It has, I believe rightfully, said that "American did not win the War of American Independence, Britain lost it." Many people in Britain and in the British government supported the same principles the Americans were fighting for, Pitt for example.
Here's an interesting point, Why was Cornwallis a brilliant general before and after the war, but incompetent during it?
EvilDandy 2 years ago
The Boston Tea Party is coming up on December 16th and there's going to be a moneybomb just like in the old days, this time for Rand !
randsteaparty(.)com
phchartrand 2 years ago
The issue boils down to personal fiscal responsibility - Americans don't have any; America can't be great and be a socialist country - it's freedom or socialism; make a choice - be free or be Uncle Sam's bitch.
KendisKustomsDotCom 2 years ago
Unfortunately, what it means is it hands lower quality doctors to the poor, but that's the nature of the beast.
I have always believed healthcare should have been a natural right, but the right of freedom of choice over rides that. The medical profession was put into the private sector and the private sector did what it always does - took over the nationalised version for quality. Hospitals are left unclean because cleaners are not given enough time. My father spent his last days in old church!
Elysiumboy1 2 years ago
BREAKING NEWS: OBAMA LINKED TO TERRORIST AT FT. HOOD
watch?v=w3c_YzIPZA0
skyding8962 2 years ago
It also makes it difficult to have a serious conversation about health care reform if people just shout "Socialism!"
TheNewHorn 2 years ago
I agree, constructive discussion and debate is preferable. However, socialists have a tendency to twist words and alter perceptions so that what they say and propose may not be recognised as socialist. Therefore those that do call it for what it is. If you suggest socialist policies as a means for health care reform, then the debate must change gears and the topic becomes whether or not socialist policies work better than the current system and if so, then better for whom.
EvilDandy 2 years ago 2
I agree with you. I've noticed that socialist tend to twist arguments around to achieve the end they want.
timbosforporn 2 years ago
I think pointing out the truth is needed in the current enviroment. I'm tired of holding my tounge with these people when they talk becuase they feel free to call us every name in the book but we can't call them communist?
timbosforporn 2 years ago
The thing is, most of Europe now has a public health care system and does anyone describe our governments as socialist?
The word socialist has been developed by the US media as a tool of fear, just look at some of the idiotic responses on here. Corporations run by men like Murdoch strive to keep the status quo, whereby they make a lot of profit without a fair system for ordinary citizens to live their lives. In a developed country, a totally private healthcare system is shameful and disgusting.
jamesytaylor1 2 years ago 2
As if there is no truth behind those charges...
timbosforporn 2 years ago
I'm going to say it...man crush. Total man crush.... lol
1207advocate 2 years ago 2
U.S. Congressman Paul Broun [R-GA], M.D., recently gave a very good example of the effects of Government intrusion:
"Congress passed a bill called CLIA, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act, which outlawed mine as well as every doctor's lab in the country. Prior to CLIA, I would do a complete blood count (CBC) in 5 minutes, for 12 bucks. CLIA shut my lab down. I had to send patients over to the hospital across the way. It then took 2 to 3 hours and cost $75 for one test. "
jaralero 2 years ago 3
D. Hannan: "Since WWII, most of these other things have been undone but we're left with one outstanding bit of war planning... a HCS funded wholly out of taxation."
The 1st central planning that WWII left is the Bretton Woods system later reconvened into a floating currency regime, which is still an inflationary system pegged to dollar reserves.
It is the major reason for increasing medical costs, notwithstanding the fact of private insurance being cheaper than mandated public insurance.
jaralero 2 years ago
yesiam111, why would anyone want to nationalize it? there is no proper way other than not doing so.
revjames 2 years ago
It's funny how he mentions living in other countries. Come to Sweden and see how to nationalize health care properly.
yesiam111 2 years ago 2
Sweden is the model that all developed countries should strive to achieve. It is no surprise that the Scandinavian countries come out top in measures of happiness every year.
jamesytaylor1 2 years ago 2
great video
a4finger 2 years ago
that old-time clip at 3:30- was it trying to be so ironic in it's original context? or was it some public education-brainwashing film?
ntheory 2 years ago
if the american people allow their heath care system to be taken over by the federal government, it will be yet another step on the slippery slope towards despotism. For anyone that disagrees, ask yourself a question. Why would the government be taking the actions necessary to a federally run health care system when there are examples of its failure all over the world? Same as gun control, the UK and Australia tried strict controls and the crime rates increased.....same will happen here.
hotblud82 2 years ago 2
Crime rates increased in canada cuz of gun restrictions...It's pretty gay!
chaosflar3 2 years ago
yeah, its pretty obvious that the US gov isnt trying to disarm their citizens to protect them....same shit that hitler pulled when he took power
hotblud82 2 years ago 2
Countries with universal health care: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom
Remind me... which one of these has a despotic regime in power?
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?
TheNewHorn 2 years ago
are you blind or just ignorant? Lets see if TheNewHorn is smart enough to put 2 and 2 together: FEMA camps, a civilian army, tightening restrictions on the ability of the masses to grow their own food, a battle-hardened battalion stationed in the united states, constant bashing of the constitution by the government, a takeover of the mousing market by the government, maintaining a war which the majority of the masses do not support.......and of course federally run health care all at once. THINK
hotblud82 2 years ago
If I might ask if you live in any of these countries? I do. How do you define a despotic regime? Are we talking Hitler's Germany or Communist Russia? Or are we talking about a more subtle despotism where people are as free as the government allows? Or one where the people have so accepted vast degrees of government control over their lives that they cannot even conceive of a different system? You don't notice the fence till either you walk into it or it starts to constrict.
EvilDandy 2 years ago
@TheNewHorn Freedom is not merely limited by the lack of democratic forms,but by the way the state uses laws and the tax code to fashion a society which precludes choices which otherwise might occur such as when gov't prevent one from buying insurance across state lines or when antitrust laws keep small businesses from joining together to buy health insurance at the cheaper rates available only to big business.Freedom comes only when even democratic gov'ts are kept from meddling with our lives.
sleedolfine15 2 years ago
We the Briti