american healthcare vs british healthcare and socialism

[RDD_1210]

I can see that we're in need of a little civics lesson here, so I'll attempt to clear it up a little bit.

There is a difference between Government funded and Taxpayer funded.

Government funded programs are included in the government's budget. In other words, the government takes in taxes according to their budget and disperses those funds according to their budget. (At least that's the way it's supposed to work, but when has the government ever actually stuck to a budget.) In a government funded program the taxpayer has no say in how that money is received (in taxes) or dispersed. The government can raise and lower those taxes without taxpayers having a say by voting. That is the major difference.

Taxpayer funded programs are a completely different animal. You pay for these through county taxes and property taxes. These are voted on by the taxpayer as a referendum. They are proposed by the county elected officials or the group who would like to use the tax revenues, and then the taxpayer has the opportunity to vote on the referendum. The taxpayer has the say in taxpayer funded programs, they do not in government funded programs.

Rick

Thank you for the information, seriously.

Now, explain to me this. I still want to understand why you are ok with taxpayers money paying for hospitals at a local level, but not a federal level?

 

[hboats]

I can see that we're in need of a little civics lesson here, so I'll attempt to clear it up a little bit.

There is a difference between Government funded and Taxpayer funded.

Government funded programs are included in the government's budget. In other words, the government takes in taxes according to their budget and disperses those funds according to their budget. (At least that's the way it's supposed to work, but when has the government ever actually stuck to a budget.) In a government funded program the taxpayer has no say in how that money is received (in taxes) or dispersed. The government can raise and lower those taxes without taxpayers having a say by voting. That is the major difference.

Taxpayer funded programs are a completely different animal. You pay for these through county taxes and property taxes. These are voted on by the taxpayer as a referendum. They are proposed by the county elected officials or the group who would like to use the tax revenues, and then the taxpayer has the opportunity to vote on the referendum. The taxpayer has the say in taxpayer funded programs, they do not in government funded programs.

Rick

Thank you for the information, seriously.

Now, explain to me this. I still want to understand why you are ok with taxpayers money paying for hospitals at a local level, but not a federal level?

Because at a local level, I have a say by my vote where, when and how that money is taken as a tax, and spent. If I want to vote a referendum down, I can do that, as long as a majority of my fellow voters agree with me. At the government level, I have no say. The federal government can raise taxes whenever they want with NO INPUT from the taxpayer. And please, show me one federal government program that is being run efficiently. I can show you at least one local one, and we've been talking about it this whole post. County Hospitals.

Therein lies the difference, and it's a huge one.

Rick

 

[RDD_1210]

When you say efficiently, do you mean profitable? I won't even try and say that government run agencies are good at making money. They just aren't. But sometimes making a profit shouldn't be the sole goal of an agency. We spend billions on our military, with no financial return. But we spend it to ensure our safety and protect our lives and people accept that. Why can't having access to quality healthcare, and the ability to actually live be the same. Why can't people have the right to know that if they get sick, their life won't come down to a financial decision?

I must say this has been refreshing having an actual discussion without name calling. Thanks.

 

[hboats]

When you say efficiently, do you mean profitable? I won't even try and say that government run agencies are good at making money. They just aren't. But sometimes making a profit shouldn't be the sole goal of an agency. We spend billions on our military, with no financial return. But we spend it to ensure our safety and protect our lives and people accept that. Why can't having access to quality healthcare, and the ability to actually live be the same. Why can't people have the right to know that if they get sick, their life won't come down to a financial decision?

I must say this has been refreshing having an actual discussion without name calling. Thanks.

I couldn't agree more, it's been a refreshing discussion. Thank you in return.

When I say efficiently I guess what I'm talking about is running something within a reasonable budget without the pork entering the picture, running something without running it into the ground. There are way too many government run programs that are running so inefficiently that they should be killed and buried and we should start over.

I was partly wrong when I said that I don't have any say when it comes to government run programs, I do have a say, but with taxpayer funded programs I have that say up front, before anything is decided. With government funded programs, the only say I have is with my vote for my representative after the fact. But I think we can both agree, after the fact is too late. The program is already in place, and when is the last time you recall a government run program being de-funded or stopped? With taxpayer run programs that can and has happened.

Rick

 

[California Girl]

free is about the only thing working in favor of the NHS. that factor is not working in favor of great britain, which is struggling to pay for the cost and further compromising service to compensate. having had brushes with both systems, there is no doubt that private or public care in the states is far superior in standard and delivery to those offered by the NHS. the NHS continues to narrow its offering to brits, while the US care model drives innovation in care and treatment... just like the private hospitals in england.

conservative and liberal politics, just like the UK, differ on the extents which the government involves itself in public life. republican conservatism has morphed into an argument of where and how, rather than how much the government will be involved, proving that they can spend and expand government in their own right. the socialist/communist bit are appeals to ignorance, just like the term 'fair' so appeals when it was flung around the latest UK election extravaganza.

our countries are different, but there's no reason to be aloof as to what is being implied with respect to healthcare or many other topics. that shit is playing itself out in england from what ive been able to see.

Can we just put one fallacy to bed.... the NHS is NOT FREE. It is 'free at the point of delivery'. It costs each and every taxpayer a substantial chunk. It is taken out of their salary, monthly, and is called 'National Insurance'. Everyone pays it, even those who choose to carry private insurance for better medical care.

The NHS is one of the biggest employers in the world, and disproportionate to the size of the country. If the US were to follow their system, the shear size of the organization would cripple us within a few years.

The Brits love the NHS - and I can understand why - they are used to the 'Nanny State' and it accepted that government is responsible for 'taking care' of everyone. Historically, America is not that kind of country, nor should we be. We are a nation founded on the principles of individual responsibility and hard work. We are a Republic, they are not.

 

[antagon]

this is true, CG, soon to be 50 points of tax plus NI...

i think that the 'brits love the NHS' or the nanny-state goes too far. i get the impression that they're sick of the nanny-state and mixed on the NHS.

 

[hboats]

I just want to take this taxpayer funded versus government funded discussion one more step.

Do you honestly think that if this bill had been taxpayer funded, which would mean it would be on a ballot for all of us to vote on as a referendum, that it would have passed?

I for one don't. Which goes to prove my point. This bill is federal government working against the will of the people that they are supposed to represent.

We got it crammed down our throats, and now we are stuck with it. Let's hope that we are all smart enough to vote out the people responsible for this bill come November and in two years.

I for one would rather have had the chance to voice my opinion ahead of time and vote down the bill, but I guess I'll have to settle for voting out those that I can.

Rick

 

[California Girl]

this is true, CG, soon to be 50 points of tax plus NI...

i think that the 'brits love the NHS' or the nanny-state goes too far. i get the impression that they're sick of the nanny-state and mixed on the NHS.

The NHS budget is over £100bn. That's $1,442,527,225,986 US. For a county of some 60 million people. It is the fourth largest employer in the world.

Now, can anyone come up with a convincing argument to make THAT work in the US? Bearing in mind our population.

 

[antagon]

I just want to take this taxpayer funded versus government funded discussion one more step.

Do you honestly think that if this bill had been taxpayer funded, which would mean it would be on a ballot for all of us to vote on as a referendum, that it would have passed?

I for one don't. Which goes to prove my point. This bill is federal government working against the will of the people that they are supposed to represent.

We got it crammed down our throats, and now we are stuck with it. Let's hope that we are all smart enough to vote out the people responsible for this bill come November and in two years.

I for one would rather have had the chance to voice my opinion ahead of time and vote down the bill, but I guess I'll have to settle for voting out those that I can.

Rick

respectfully, i think the very basis of your distiction between taxpayer funded and government funded is bogus. as long as you are referring to government (city, county, state or fed) use of tax monies, any distinction is mere personal perception. there is no commonly-held difference between the two terms, nor is there a practical distinction between species of mandatory taxation and arbitrary spending relative to the payer of the taxes themselves.

 

[hboats]

I just want to take this taxpayer funded versus government funded discussion one more step.

Do you honestly think that if this bill had been taxpayer funded, which would mean it would be on a ballot for all of us to vote on as a referendum, that it would have passed?

I for one don't. Which goes to prove my point. This bill is federal government working against the will of the people that they are supposed to represent.

We got it crammed down our throats, and now we are stuck with it. Let's hope that we are all smart enough to vote out the people responsible for this bill come November and in two years.

I for one would rather have had the chance to voice my opinion ahead of time and vote down the bill, but I guess I'll have to settle for voting out those that I can.

Rick

respectfully, i think the very basis of your distiction between taxpayer funded and government funded is bogus. as long as you are referring to government (city, county, state or fed) use of tax monies, any distinction is mere personal perception. there is no commonly-held difference between the two terms, nor is there a practical distinction between species of mandatory taxation and arbitrary spending relative to the payer of the taxes themselves.

I see what you're saying, taxes are taxes, but I disagree that there is no difference between the two types.

At the local level, you and I both get to vote individually on whether or not we want our taxes to be increased. It's not my problem if people don't understand and take advantage of their opportunity to vote on their local taxes. But, you can't argue that it is the case.

On the federal government level, you and I individually have no say on taxes. Our representatives vote for us. We don't have an individual vote.

There is a HUGE distinction between the two. You can't argue that.

Rick

 

[antagon]

I just want to take this taxpayer funded versus government funded discussion one more step.

Do you honestly think that if this bill had been taxpayer funded, which would mean it would be on a ballot for all of us to vote on as a referendum, that it would have passed?

I for one don't. Which goes to prove my point. This bill is federal government working against the will of the people that they are supposed to represent.

We got it crammed down our throats, and now we are stuck with it. Let's hope that we are all smart enough to vote out the people responsible for this bill come November and in two years.

I for one would rather have had the chance to voice my opinion ahead of time and vote down the bill, but I guess I'll have to settle for voting out those that I can.

Rick

respectfully, i think the very basis of your distiction between taxpayer funded and government funded is bogus. as long as you are referring to government (city, county, state or fed) use of tax monies, any distinction is mere personal perception. there is no commonly-held difference between the two terms, nor is there a practical distinction between species of mandatory taxation and arbitrary spending relative to the payer of the taxes themselves.

I see what you're saying, taxes are taxes, but I disagree that there is no difference between the two types.

At the local level, you and I both get to vote individually on whether or not we want our taxes to be increased. It's not my problem if people don't understand and take advantage of their opportunity to vote on their local taxes. But, you can't argue that it is the case.

On the federal government level, you and I individually have no say on taxes. Our representatives vote for us. We don't have an individual vote.

There is a HUGE distinction between the two. You can't argue that.

Rick

there's some truth to this, i suppose. i've only lived in two states, and in none of those states, or any county which i have owned property has their ever been an option to determine increases in taxation. personally, i dont believe that referendum democracy is necessarily feasible from a fiscal standpoint, as it exacerbates the wagner's law effect. i would image constituencies with the power to determine taxation and expenditure would likely wind up defaulting on debt out of fiscal recklessness.

anyhow, i cant relate to such a system of popular determination, having never known or lived under such a scenario. it has always been more like oh god, what next from the california government despite the referendum system in place there.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You might be, the angriest most hateful person on this forum. What are you so angry about? Get outside and enjoy the world a bit, it might do you some good.

you havent even been here a month and your saying this?.....Cali Girl aint nothing compared to some of the posters here dude.....

 

[Christopher]

i will say that here in britain we actually find it pretty amusing how the conservatives in america keep wailing about how obama is communist for wanting universal healthcare, dont u guys realize that ur neigbour canada and ur closest ally britain also have universal healthcare and does that make us communist. Not to mention new zealand and australia i find it amazing that in america people are okay with a system that allows peole to become bankrupt or die simply because they cannot afford to pay for insurance. after reading the article i would like to read peoples thoughts regarding which system is better

This American’s Experience of Britain’s Healthcare System Potential and Expectations

You find it amusing because of your perspective, although I think you are wrong. Most of us are calling him socialist, not communist. The UK went from completely monarchy-controlled to a constitutional monarchy. That was actually progress towards greater freedom for the individual. Yet you are still used to your government controlling much more than we are used to in America. So, when our government forces everyone to buy health insurance our perspective is that it is taking away our freedom and moving us towards the socialist UK, whereas for you it would be “business as usual” for the government.

By the way, I lived in England for a few years and know what the health care system is like. It is not the system I want for America. Canada has implemented tort reform in their system, so there are some things we can learn from them on how to control costs.