The Case for National Health Care

[KurtFF8]

This is a former professor of mine giving an argument for national health care. While he isn't a "revolutionary" he makes what I think is an excellent argument against private health insurance and a good case for a NHS style system.

HhY0SV9Kwvg

Here's the playlist link since it's in 7 parts and is just a little over an hour (including Q and A) http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=167E56D52DEB1176

(If this is the wrong subforum, sorry)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Perhaps because I live in Britain, but i'm mystified by the private v national healthcare debate. To me it seems antiquated and out-of-date to have such a debate.

In other words, it is proven that universal health care is the best form of providing healthcare. Even the Tories won't attack the principle of universal health care, which is something i'm actually glad about - it is one thing to have your employment rights trounced upon, to be working for £5 per hour whilst people earn undeserved billions, but at least in this country (even if there are obvious improvements that can be made, particularly in respect to the target-orientated, top down management structure, and also in regards to PFIs) every single citizen knows that they will be treated in an emergency, come what may.

I can't imagine the stress it must pour on the 45 million or so Americans that have had no healthcare coverage whatsoever, and the 20million who will still not be covered by this 'historic' healthcare bill passed by Obama.

[KurtFF8]

I agree. It's interesting that conservatives in places like the UK wouldn't dare actually try to dismantle NHS (This same professor gave a good class about Thatcher's attempt to tackle the issue).

This is one thing that many people have pointed to when trying to describe the failure of Social Democratic parties in Western Europe. The conservatives tend to be able to articulate the problems of people in better ways, while they've also adopted the welfare state into their program. The Social Democrats don't have much to offer anymore. And while people claim that this is a sign of the European Left being "done for" the actual "radical" or "revolutionary" left seems to be growing in popularity (there was an interesting article in "The Nation" that I posted here a while back about this)

[syndicat]

In other words, it is proven that universal health care is the best form of providing healthcare. Even the Tories won't attack the principle of universal health

we have this same phenomenon in the USA with social security. Republicans will not try to dismantle it...even tho back in the '30s they denounced it as socialistic. This is because a universal program builds a broad constituency. but it was only at a point of severe ruling class weakness that social security in USA and NHS in UK were instituted.

At present both Democrats and Repubs oppose a universal system. It reflects the vast power of the moneyed elite, the capitalist health insurance companies, Big Pharma, the corporate media.

The socalled "reform" under Obama retains vast disparities in the kind of health care people will get. Everyone is forced bo buy private insurance...so it's a huge giveaway to the big insurance companies. And there are limits to the amount of subsidies you will receive to buy insurance, so it may still not be affordable to low income people. and who is to say how much actual coverage you will have? Many of these plans have huge deductibles and copays. As it is right now, many of the people who go bankrupt from medical bills have health insurance. so just saying "almost everyone has health insurance" doesn't say there is an affordable, equitable system.

[PurpleLove]

I bet if FDR would have lived longer, we would have had universal health care.
I agree with the sentiment that since a large group of people enjoy one benefit, it's much easier to dismantle it. It's exactly why Big Pharma, the health insurance companies, etc. don't even want us having the conversation about what our country would be like if we weren't being fucked over by them.

[christinhoods]

Perhaps because I live in Britain, but i'm mystified by the private v national healthcare debate. To me it seems antiquated and out-of-date to have such a debate.

In other words, it is proven that universal health care is the best form of providing healthcare. Even the Tories won't attack the principle of universal health care, which is something i'm actually glad about - it is one thing to have your employment rights trounced upon, to be working for £5 per hour whilst people earn undeserved billions, but at least in this country (even if there are obvious improvements that can be made, particularly in respect to the target-orientated, top down management structure, and also in regards to PFIs) every single citizen knows that they will be treated in an emergency, come what may.

I can't imagine the stress it must pour on the 45 million or so Americans that have had no healthcare coverage whatsoever, and the 20million who will still not be covered by this 'historic' healthcare bill passed by Obama.
Agree with that.I appreciate you for providing such kind of details regarding to healthcare bill.Please do join here for future discussion also.

[ed miliband]

The reason the Tories (and Labour, and the Lib Dems) are publically 'in favour' of the NHS has little to do with them thinking it is the best way of providing health care, and more to do with the fact that no party could win an election if they launched a campaign calling for the dismantling of the NHS. The fact is, Labour have slowly allowed business to creep into the realms of the NHS, and the Conservatives will continue that trend.

So yeah, while there is a public, cross-party consensus that 'NHS = GOOD!', it is not ideologically motivated, and the reality is a little more... complicated.

[RebelDog]

There is no argument for private healthcare whatsoever, its totally immoral. At the moment healthcare in the US is distributed by wealth, thats clearly ridiculous and harmful. Also the US healthcare system is unbelievably inefficient. As Chomsky points out, Cuba has comparable outcomes for 5% of the price. If one wants desirable outcomes for all in any institution it can never involve private ownership and the market.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

I watched dispatches a few weeks ago about how to save the £100 Billion. Some bright spark voiced his opinion that we should Downsize the NHS and bring in 'Competition'... he was rightly boo'd and laughed at by an audience made up of the general public. Private influence in the NHS isn't welcome.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The reason the Tories (and Labour, and the Lib Dems) are publically 'in favour' of the NHS has little to do with them thinking it is the best way of providing health care, and more to do with the fact that no party could win an election if they launched a campaign calling for the dismantling of the NHS. The fact is, Labour have slowly allowed business to creep into the realms of the NHS, and the Conservatives will continue that trend.

So yeah, while there is a public, cross-party consensus that 'NHS = GOOD!', it is not ideologically motivated, and the reality is a little more... complicated.

This has been happening in Sweden since the early 1980's.

Infact, today, the system of primary care is almost wholly privatised (competition! efficiency! better, more, cheaper, better!) and many major hospitals - particularly in Stockholm which has always been a cesspit of liberalism - are also privatised. However, they do not make their profits from charging patients - they are paid by the counties (länsting) which in turn are funded by the government. The way they maximise their profits is by charging the state for visits, and then minimising the number of employees and their pay, and how long time and resource is spent on each patient. (The system is basically school vouchers but with patients).

Slowly but surely, both by social-democrats and the liberal-conservative union of evil, the system has been privatised and fragmented, goal-oriented computerised accounting of "achievements" with associated arbitrary "bonuses" to "simulate a market environment with rewards" have been introduced, leading to many problems. I know similar reforms have been carried out in the NHS in the UK, to similar results - re-classification of corridors as hospital room to give the illusion of decreasing waiting times, having those greeters so it can be claimed the patients got to see a doctor quick - so on so forth-

They cannot directly attack it, so they do it slowly and from the inside. They start to dismantle it, and as services decline from their onslaught - what is the solution? Free market, open up the health care sector to investment groups and new companies set up to raid society by venture capitalists; competition; time goes-- by now, they have increased the arbitrary cost of hospital visit, and it's sure to go up more - soon, I foresee they will introduce actual fees for different treatments, private health insurance has been increasing in popularity as well-

As services decline people get annoyed they do not get treatments in time or waiting times get too long. The social-democrats/liberals/conservatives then use this situation that develops to justify further fragmentation of the health care system into a morass of private insurers, private car-takers and private pharmacies. And capitalism expands to a new market sector, like an infection that spreads when unchecked; and growth for a little while more is assured.