Nationalise Healthcare

[patrickbeverley]

Speaking as a British citizen, I would like to point out first of all that most British people can't believe that America still doesn't have free healthcare. We have had it for 61 years, and the National Health Service is only controversial in that the major political parties disagree on how best to manage it.

The fact that 40 million Americans have no health insurance appalls me. Where I live there is no such thing as someone who can't afford healthcare: if you check into a hospital they do not need to check that you have insurance, they just treat you. The only sense in which the British pay for their healthcare is in paying their taxes, and those below a certain income (those who can't get healthcare in America, in other words) are exempt from taxation.

MedicAid might help, but as I see it the only way for the US to truly correct the injustice in American healthcare is to nationalise it. This would solve the problem of those 40 million (at least their medical treatment - as for their other problems, :hammer: ).

(I know this is not an Opposing Ideology as such - if anything, it's orthodox leftism - but I would ask the moderators if they would be so kind as to leave it here, as I think this discussion will be much more interesting with cappies posting.)

[RaiseYourVoice]

In germany our government cant believe that health care is free for so long, thats why you have to pay more and more. alot of treatment is no longer possible for everyone. also here they want to make everything private....
seems like the US is the role model for us... should be the other way around....

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:09 PM
Speaking as a British citizen, I would like to point out first of all that most British people can't believe that America still doesn't have free healthcare. We have had it for 61 years, and the National Health Service is only controversial in that the major political parties disagree on how best to manage it.

The fact that 40 million Americans have no health insurance appalls me. Where I live there is no such thing as someone who can't afford healthcare: if you check into a hospital they do not need to check that you have insurance, they just treat you. The only sense in which the British pay for their healthcare is in paying their taxes, and those below a certain income (those who can't get healthcare in America, in other words) are exempt from taxation.

MedicAid might help, but as I see it the only way for the US to truly correct the injustice in American healthcare is to nationalise it. This would solve the problem of those 40 million (at least their medical treatment - as for their other problems, :hammer: ).

(I know this is not an Opposing Ideology as such - if anything, it's orthodox leftism - but I would ask the moderators if they would be so kind as to leave it here, as I think this discussion will be much more interesting with cappies posting.)
ok then, however the difference is in the care and qaultiy you get. i was in engalnd several summers ago and one of my firend broke his leg. the difference btween the treatments was prety stark. in americna hopstials everything (even in th epoorerer areas) has at least a fiarly new feel. even when i went to a hopstial in a poor part of maryland the doctor was telling me about the new xray machine. in brtiain they seemed ot be using taped together stuff from the 70s. the doctors seemed skilled but fustrated. I could go on but i have calss

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:30 PM
Even when i went to a hospital in a poor part of maryland the doctor was telling me about the new x-ray machine.
What a shame it wasn't available to the poor people of the poor part of Maryland!


in britain they seemed to be using taped together stuff from the 70s.

At least it's available to all. In Britain, if you want to pay for your healthcare, there are private hospitals (though I'm deeply suspicious of them). But for those who can't, "taped together stuff from the 70s" is streets ahead of nothing at all.

[Loknar]

I am not against the idea of a funded healthcare system, however I don’t trust a government enough to control and regulate it...

Oddly enough, in America, the government ran hospitals are among the best in the world. Where I live the Cook County Board President had the county hospital named after him self..But I don’t listen to that BS and simply call the hospital Cook Country Hospital as it should be called. If you go there the problem is the long wait...but it is one of the most technologically advanced hospitals in the country and it's free if you don’t have insurance.

And, I am not entirely satisfied with America's system. 90,000 people are said to die every year from in hospital infections caused by nurses and doctors (but in all fairness hospitals are loaded with bacteria). Does any other country have this problem? Don’t just say no, you may not even know it exists and I suggest you google it.

But as bad as it is, if you have insurance you are in the clear. You get 10,000$ a night rooms and get to be scanned by million dollar pieces of equipment.

[LSD]

ok then, however the difference is in the care and qaultiy you get.

Yeah, but problem is that poor people get no care and no quality!

Obviously, you can do well in America if your rich. But if don't happen to be that lucky, it's pretty tough to get by.

I've been to an American hospital and let me tell you, if I has to to there regularly, it would bankrupt me.

There may be lines in my local emergency room, but at least anyone and everyone can get into that line. I've been to five different hospitals all across my city for numerous different procedures and I've never been charged a penny.

As I've said before; social democracy may not work very well, but health care is one aspect in which it actually tends to be social and demcratic.

Meanwhile, the US with its "individualist" healthcare policy is the only industrialized nation on earth not to take care of all it citizen's medical needs and also has some of the worst health statistic in the "west".

It's also somewhat fascinating that while studies consistantly show that most Americans want socialized medcine (some polls even show as much as 80% support for the idea! :o), there's been no real political initiative to implement it.

So much for "government for the people"! :lol:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 04:19 PM

And, I am not entirely satisfied with America's system. 90,000 people are said to die every year from in hospital infections caused by nurses and doctors (but in all fairness hospitals are loaded with bacteria). Does any other country have this problem? Don’t just say no, you may not even know it exists and I suggest you google it.


All hospitals are like that, socialized or not. Hospitals aren't a place to stick around to heal, only if your life is in immediate danger.

[theraven]

What a shame it wasn't available to the poor people of the poor part of Maryland!

um the waiting room was full of the poor people of the poor part of maryland. I don't really think you get much poorer then these poeple.




At least it's available to all. In Britain, if you want to pay for your healthcare, there are private hospitals (though I'm deeply suspicious of them). But for those who can't, "taped together stuff from the 70s" is streets ahead of nothing at all.

most people can get heealth care in some way between medicare and medcaid anda ll that. also from what i've read(though i may be wrong) most people without health acre are young people who choose this.

Yeah, but problem is that poor people get no care and no quality!

Obviously, you can do well in America if your rich. But if don't happen to be that lucky, it's pretty tough to get by.


I've been to an American hospital and let me tell you, if I has to to there regularly, it would bankrupt me.

no it wouldn't, most health care covers msot of it.


There may be lines in my local emergency room, but at least anyone and everyone can get into that line. I've been to five different hospitals all across my city for numerous different procedures and I've never been charged a penny.

where do you live?



Meanwhile, the US with its "individualist" healthcare policy is the only industrialized nation on earth not to take care of all it citizen's medical needs and also has some of the worst health statistic in the "west".

not really, we have an average age of death, and infrant mortatlity is a bit higher then most, but that is because of different statisca methods.


It's also somewhat fascinating that while studies consistantly show that most Americans want socialized medcine (some polls even show as much as 80% support for the idea! ohmy.gif), there's been no real political initiative to implement it.

So much for "government for the people"! laugh.gif

i beleive their are similair numbers to deport all illegal immirgants..

[Loknar]

All hospitals are like that, socialized or not. Hospitals aren't a place to stick around to heal, only if your life is in immediate danger.

No there was more to it than that. I also read that Nurses and doctors do not have the most hygienic habits or are not careful enough. Also, and this happened to my grandfather, they gave a Do not necessitate order and even gave him the wrong medication that caused his ulcer to bleed (he never requested a Do not recessitate).

Also, you have just provided a motive that I didn’t think of. You see, they want to keep people with insurance for as long as possible. Rooms can cost thousands of dollars per day and insurance will cover it. I am willing to bet that overstaying a visit also contributes.

I have a hard time trusting America’s hospitals because of what happened to my grandfather (he's alive and well though, he's 83 and still drives his own car).

[Tungsten]

patrickbeverley

Speaking as a British citizen, I would like to point out first of all that most British people can't believe that America still doesn't have free healthcare. We have had it for 61 years,And it's crap. Unless your name is Patricia Hewitt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4935358.stm).

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:55 PM
And it's crap. Unless your name is Patricia Hewitt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4935358.stm).

ok then, however the difference is in the care and qaultiy you get


Yeah, but problem is that poor people get no care and no quality!

[LSD]

no it wouldn't, most health care covers msot of it.

Bullshit.

Something like 40 million Americans have no health care coverage whatsoever, and that almost certainly does not include the homeless, indigent, or undocumented.


where do you live?

Canada.


not really, we have an average age of death, and infrant mortatlity is a bit higher then most, but that is because of different statisca methods.

That's complete and utter crap and you know it.

The UN and the WHO use the same standards when evaluating various countries' statistic, and they both consistantly find the US to be at the bottom of industrialized nations.

In fact, even Cuba scores better in certain health ares! :o


i beleive their are similair numbers to deport all illegal immirgants..[

Nonsense.

The latest polling data suggests that only 18% of Americans (http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm) support the deportation of all illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, similar studies consistantly find (http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm) that a strong majority of Americans favour a universal health care system and have done so for quite some time.

Obviously, though, you've yet to see one put in place.

Again, if the US system is truly "democratic" or "representative", how do you account for this disrepancy?

[theraven]

Bullshit.

Something like 40 million Americans have no health care coverage whatsoever, and that almost certainly does not include the homeless, indigent, or undocumented.


I have no idea where that stat comes from or what it includes or doesnt. do you have a souce about it?


Canada.

ah, our younger brother



That's complete and utter crap and you know it.

The UN and the WHO use the same standards when evaluating various countries' statistic, and they both consistantly find the US to be at the bottom of industrialized nations.

In fact, even Cuba scores better in certain health ares! ohmy.gif

they generally use those cournties doctors meausrments. they dont' do their own statiiscs...(unless you have proof otheriwse)

Nonsense.


The latest polling data suggests that only 18% of Americans support the deportation of all illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, similar studies consistantly find that a strong majority of Americans favour a universal health care system and have done so for quite some time.

Obviously, though, you've yet to see one put in place.

Again, if the US system is truly "democratic" or "representative", how do you account for this disrepancy

whats your source on those stats?

[kurt]

There may be lines in my local emergency room, but at least anyone and everyone can get into that line. I've been to five different hospitals all across my city for numerous different procedures and I've never been charged a penny.

Well, I'm not sure where you live, but I'm in Canada, and have the unforunate experience of being quite familiar with our "wait lists". Sure, politicians like to respond to any criticism with the retort, "there are lines, but at least it's free". Now I know I'd be bankrupt and dead if I lived in the U.S.A, but the real trick in Canada is not dying before your number is called. Who knows how much more time I have before they call me?

And I highly contest the fact that the healthcare system is "social" and "democratic". While our system is in shambles, politicians are taking 3% pay hikes yearly, and people are dying. :angry:

[LSD]

I have no idea where that stat comes from or what it includes or doesnt. do you have a souce about it?

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml


they generally use those cournties doctors meausrments. they dont' do their own statiiscs...(unless you have proof otheriwse)

Again, that's complete crap.

According to the World Health Report 2006 statistical annex; explanatory notes (http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2006/annex/06_annex_notes_en.pdf), p. 156:
The WHO uses a standard method to estimate and project life tables for all Member States using comparable data. This meay lead to minor differences compared with official life tables prepared by Member States.

and on p. 164:
...not many many recent censuses with sufficiently detailed ISCO coding were both available and accessible. In the present data set, a total of 12 countries fall into this category ... for a further three, namely Estonaia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the data presented in Annex Table 4 were from representative labour force or household surveys: collected in the Luxemburg Incom (or Employment) Study.

Understand? The WHO does not "trust' government statistics alone, nor does it relly upon local methodology. The point of international statistics, after all, is to be international. And the idea that the WHO is too "stupid" to notice a "stastical difference" is ludicrous.

Now, you can come up with whatever excuses you want for why the US has such low health indicators. A lot of right-wing types like to blame "immigrants" or the "lazy poor". But it's just delusional to attempt and deny the truth.


whats your source on those stats?

If you'd care to look back at my post, you'd notice that I already cited my sources. But if you'd like me to do so again, I can oblige:

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm


Well, I'm not sure where you live, but I'm in Canada, and have the unforunate experience of being quite familiar with our "wait lists".

As am I and, frankly, in my experience they're not nearly as bad as Stephen Harper and CanWest/BCE make them out to be.

Sure, we've got problems -- that's what happens when you try to run a "socialized" system within bourgeois capitalism -- but "wait lists" are far superior to private health care.

Does our system need to be changed? Absolutely, but not in the direction of American-style "medicine"!


Sure, politicians like to respond to any criticism with the retort, "there are lines, but at least it's free".

No, actually the recent line has been "it needs to be reformed" -- in case you're unaware, "reform" is bourgeois code for privatized! :o

Our system is very far from perfect, but the "solutions" that the tories and liberals have to offer are definitely not in our interest.

The preservation of socialized medicine or the CHA is not in our direct interest as revolutionaries, but our class obligation to the proletariat demands that we fight to preserve it. We simply cannot allow thousands of workers to suffer and die because the cause wasn't "revolutionary" for us.

We need strong and active unions and an empowered citizenry, and one area in which the proletariat can "cut" its progressive "teeth", is in the area of health care. Because if we don't take a hard line on this subject, we could end up like the US! :o


And I highly contest the fact that the healthcare system is "social" and "democratic".

Well, it's more "social" and "democratic" than any other aspect of our public sector.

Sure, the government that runs it is bourgeois and corrupt as all hell, but at least the bare system is still run along basic egalitarian principles.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 12:56 AM

I have no idea where that stat comes from or what it includes or doesnt. do you have a souce about it?

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml


they generally use those cournties doctors meausrments. they dont' do their own statiiscs...(unless you have proof otheriwse)

Again, that's complete crap.

According to the World Health Report 2006 statistical annex; explanatory notes (http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2006/annex/06_annex_notes_en.pdf), p. 156:
The WHO uses a standard method to estimate and project life tables for all Member States using comparable data. This meay lead to minor differences compared with official life tables prepared by Member States.


and on p. 164:
...not many many recent censuses with sufficiently detailed ISCO coding were both available and accessible. In the present data set, a total of 12 countries fall into this category ... for a further three, namely Estonaia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the data presented in Annex Table 4 were from representative labour force or household surveys: collected in the Luxemburg Incom (or Employment) Study.


Understand? The WHO does not "trust' government statistics alone, nor does it relly upon local methodology. The point of international statistics, after all, is to be international. And the idea that the WHO is too "stupid" to notice a "stastical difference" is ludicrous.

Now, you can come up with whatever excuses you want for why the US has such low health indicators. A lot of right-wing types like to blame "immigrants" or the "lazy poor". But it's just delusional to attempt and deny the truth.


whats your source on those stats?

If you'd care to look back at my post, you'd notice that I already cited my sources. But if you'd like me to do so again, I can oblige:

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm


Well, I'm not sure where you live, but I'm in Canada, and have the unforunate experience of being quite familiar with our "wait lists".

As am I and, frankly, in my experience they're not nearly as bad as Stephen Harper and CanWest/BCE make them out to be.

Sure, we've got problems -- that's what happens when you try to run a "socialized" system within bourgeois capitalism -- but "wait lists" are far superior to private health care.

Does our system need to be changed? Absolutely, but not in the direction of American-style "medicine"!


Sure, politicians like to respond to any criticism with the retort, "there are lines, but at least it's free".

No, actually the recent line has been "it needs to be reformed" -- in case you're unaware, "reform" is bourgeois code for privatized! :o

Our system is very far from perfect, but the "solutions" that the tories and liberals have to offer are definitely not in our interest.

The preservation of socialized medicine or the CHA is not in our direct interest as revolutionaries, but our class obligation to the proletariat demands that we fight to preserve it. We simply cannot allow thousands of workers to suffer and die because the cause wasn't "revolutionary" for us.

We need strong and active unions and an empowered citizenry, and one area in which the proletariat can "cut" its progressive "teeth", is in the area of health care. Because if we don't take a hard line on this subject, we could end up like the US! :o


And I highly contest the fact that the healthcare system is "social" and "democratic".

Well, it's more "social" and "democratic" than any other aspect of our public sector.

Sure, the government that runs it is bourgeois and corrupt as all hell, but at least the bare system is still run along basic egalitarian principles.
"the inherent problem with capitislim is the unequal sharing of goods and the inehrent probelm with socialms is the equal sharing of misery"

[LSD]

Is that your "subtle" way of saying that you can't refute my arguments? :lol:

Seriously, raven, back up your claims. You have contended that there is no health care crisis in American, that the studies which show there is are "statistically" wrong, and that most Americans do not seriously support socialized medicine.

I have proven all three of these contentions to be false.

Since you have not responded in any productive way, am I to take it that you've conceded these points?

[cyu]

Not related to the latest debate, but I took a look at some of the other links at the WHO web site (http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2006/annex/06_annex1_en.pdf).

Interesting facts about life expectancy:

1. United States is tied with Cuba at 78.
2. China (72) beats out Vietnam (71) which beats out Russia (65).
3. Switzerland (81), Sweden (81), Italy (81), Norway (80), Spain (80), Canada (80), France (80), Germany (79), UK (79), and Finland (79) beat out the US.
4. Iraq (55) is far behind Iran (70).
5. India (62) ties Pakistan (62).

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:35 PM
4. Iraq (55) is far behind Iran (70).
How recent was this poll? Because I have a horrible image in my head of that little number next to Iraq counting down 55... 54... 53... :unsure:

[cyu]

How recent was this poll? Because I have a horrible image in my head of that little number next to Iraq counting down 55... 54... 53...

It's 2004... yeah, I think it's probably mostly due to American policies that it's so low compared to Iran.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:01 PM
And it's crap. Unless your name is Patricia Hewitt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4935358.stm).
It's crap because over the years New Labour has tried (and largely succeeded) to privatise the NHS.

You probaly haven't even heard of the PFI.

<_<

Read a book by Allyson Pollock called "NHS plc: The Privatisation of Our Health Care".

[Tungsten]

Intifada

It&#39;s crap because over the years New Labour has tried (and largely succeeded) to privatise the NHS.
Then why is private healthcare so much better than the NHS? Don&#39;t fob me off with speeches from the ivory tower that say otherwise, because I&#39;ve seen both and they&#39;re worlds apart.

[Intifada]

Then why is private healthcare so much better than the NHS?

:huh:

The NHS is crap because of the attempts to privatise it instead of putting money into it.

And I don&#39;t care about "quality" of healthcare, when there are human beings who cannot receive that healthcare because they are too poor.

Health care is a basic human right, and should not be determined by a person&#39;s wealth.