Another Brit in the US

[Academic]

Welcome to the message board.

I have a question:

Why do you people drive on the wrong side of the road?

I'll answer the simple question first: It dates back to days of old, when people would carry swords with them. Because most were right handed, people traveled (by horse) on the left so if they needed to attack / or defend themselves with their swords, they could do this with their right hand and be in the correct position to attack / defend.

I guess after that people get used to things being a certain way. Read a while back that in Samoa last month they decided to change things around - they now drive on the left instead of the right (so that imported cars from New Zealand / Australia - where they also drive on the left) would be more suited to their roads. But eek - imagine the chaos...

Welcome, Redcoat! Why is it that you prefer living in the United States?

I can't imagine a 100% atheist being scared in a religious setting.

Call it what you like. If some bastard or group of bastards employed by the government to ration the available health care to the available patients makes decisions that deny attention to selected candidates, those bastards can rightly be called a Death Panel...they decide who gets treatment and who doesn't, given that one of the two will die without the treatment being rationed. If you think it wouldn't be a partisan rationing, you have a serious problem and should seek help immediately...before it becomes rationed.

Quality of life in the US is better than the UK. The UK is very cramped, and very expensive. The weather really is awful, and decades of governments - on all sides of the political spectrum - being too scared to invest money in infrastructure means the place is falling apart somewhat.

Your seem to have fundamentally mis-understood what the National Health Service in Britain is about. I'm genuinely interested in hearing where you got your views from.

There is no group of people employed to decide who gets essential treatment and who doesn't. If you need essential treatment 99% you will get it, and it will be free. This is a good thing.

In any situation there are exceptions. In the UK there are occasional stories of someone needing essential treatment and they do not get it. In the US there are occasional stories of someone with full insurance who does not get treatment because the insurance company finds an absurd loophole so they can wriggle out of paying. Or they pay up to a point and then the person ends up either bankrupt and unable to pay for the treatment they need. As I mentioned before, no system is perfect.

The problem in the UK comes when prioritising treatment for non-life threatening conditions. Again, there is no panel who decides who gets treated and who doesn't. It is simply a matter of how many people are ahead of you in the queue, and the resources available in your locality. If you are unlucky and live in an area with (for example) few specialists and many people needing to see the specialist, you could end up having a very long wait for free treatment. Alternatively, if you are lucky, you can end up being seen very quickly.

 

[asaratis]

Welcome to the message board.

I have a question:

Why do you people drive on the wrong side of the road?

I'll answer the simple question first: It dates back to days of old, when people would carry swords with them. Because most were right handed, people traveled (by horse) on the left so if they needed to attack / or defend themselves with their swords, they could do this with their right hand and be in the correct position to attack / defend.

I guess after that people get used to things being a certain way. Read a while back that in Samoa last month they decided to change things around - they now drive on the left instead of the right (so that imported cars from New Zealand / Australia - where they also drive on the left) would be more suited to their roads. But eek - imagine the chaos...

Welcome, Redcoat! Why is it that you prefer living in the United States?

I can't imagine a 100% atheist being scared in a religious setting.

Call it what you like. If some bastard or group of bastards employed by the government to ration the available health care to the available patients makes decisions that deny attention to selected candidates, those bastards can rightly be called a Death Panel...they decide who gets treatment and who doesn't, given that one of the two will die without the treatment being rationed. If you think it wouldn't be a partisan rationing, you have a serious problem and should seek help immediately...before it becomes rationed.

Quality of life in the US is better than the UK. The UK is very cramped, and very expensive. The weather really is awful, and decades of governments - on all sides of the political spectrum - being too scared to invest money in infrastructure means the place is falling apart somewhat.

Your seem to have fundamentally mis-understood what the National Health Service in Britain is about. I'm genuinely interested in hearing where you got your views from.

There is no group of people employed to decide who gets essential treatment and who doesn't. If you need essential treatment 99% you will get it, and it will be free. This is a good thing.

In any situation there are exceptions. In the UK there are occasional stories of someone needing essential treatment and they do not get it. In the US there are occasional stories of someone with full insurance who does not get treatment because the insurance company finds an absurd loophole so they can wriggle out of paying. Or they pay up to a point and then the person ends up either bankrupt and unable to pay for the treatment they need. As I mentioned before, no system is perfect.

The problem in the UK comes when prioritising treatment for non-life threatening conditions. Again, there is no panel who decides who gets treated and who doesn't. It is simply a matter of how many people are ahead of you in the queue, and the resources available in your locality. If you are unlucky and live in an area with (for example) few specialists and many people needing to see the specialist, you could end up having a very long wait for free treatment. Alternatively, if you are lucky, you can end up being seen very quickly.

I claim no knowledge of the British system or rationing health care. I believe Sarah Palin's reference to "death panels" was related to the formation of committees within the proposed US health care rationing system that would determine who got what and when.

 

[Academic]

I claim no knowledge of the British system or rationing health care. I believe Sarah Palin's reference to "death panels" was related to the formation of committees within the proposed US health care rationing system that would determine who got what and when.

Sarah Palin's comments were designed to stoke the flames and incite anger - and they succeeded. When she said

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

- did you just accept she was telling the truth? because there was nothing in any Democrat proposal that said a group of bureaucrats would decide upon who gets treatment and who doesn't. Nothing related to measuring levels of productivity and then deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't - it was all nonsense. Any universal healthcare system will almost certainly be based around those that exist in countries such as the UK, Canada, Germany, Sweden... none are perfect - I highlighted the problems above - but none have anything even remotely resembling death panels. and nor would any US system.

 

[asaratis]

I claim no knowledge of the British system or rationing health care. I believe Sarah Palin's reference to "death panels" was related to the formation of committees within the proposed US health care rationing system that would determine who got what and when.

Sarah Palin's comments were designed to stoke the flames and incite anger - and they succeeded. When she said

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

- did you just accept she was telling the truth? because there was nothing in any Democrat proposal that said a group of bureaucrats would decide upon who gets treatment and who doesn't. Nothing related to measuring levels of productivity and then deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't - it was all nonsense. Any universal healthcare system will almost certainly be based around those that exist in countries such as the UK, Canada, Germany, Sweden... none are perfect - I highlighted the problems above - but none have anything even remotely resembling death panels. and nor would any US system.

Who will decide which patients get treated?...which patients get the available transplant organs?...which patients get expensive tests and treatments?

I recall hearing that Obama reassured some that no government official would decide who gets what. I recall hearing of an amendment being introduced by a Republican to make sure that was the case. I recall hearing that amendment was defeated by the Dems.

I don't think Sarah Palin was trying to scare people...just to get a little closer to a true picture of what's being proposed. Somebody has to decide who lives and who dies...might as well let it be called a Death Panel.

 

[Academic]

Who will decide which patients get treated?...which patients get the available transplant organs?...which patients get expensive tests and treatments?

I recall hearing that Obama reassured some that no government official would decide who gets what. I recall hearing of an amendment being introduced by a Republican to make sure that was the case. I recall hearing that amendment was defeated by the Dems.

I don't think Sarah Palin was trying to scare people...just to get a little closer to a true picture of what's being proposed. Somebody has to decide who lives and who dies...might as well let it be called a Death Panel.

The implication for "Who will decide which patients get treated?" is that some get treated while others don't. As I have already pointed out, this is not the case with universal healthcare. The issue isn't who gets treated and who doesn't, it is who get treated first. Generally, the person with greatest need gets treated before others. For urgent procedures, all get treated, most of the time as quickly as they would be here. For transplants, those who have been waiting longest will get treated. Presumably in the US, if you don't have insurance, then it doesn't matter how long you've been waiting - you won't get treated, but those with money will?

For non-urgent (i.e. non life threatening conditions) normally those who have waited longest get treated first. It also becomes easier to treat all who need treatment by cutting down on unnecessary medical procedures (estimated to be as high as 30% based on a report I saw on CBS). If people want unnecessary medical procedures, they can pay for these themselves. This frees up time, resources and money to concentrate on those who do need urgent treatment.

So let me clarify again. In no universal healthcare system is there a person - or panel of people - who decides who lives and who dies. To believe it just because those on the right wing say it over and over again, is as ignorant as believing there were WMD in Iraq just because the right wing said it over and over again.

Of course Sarah Palin was trying to scare people, and it worked. Rather than actually investigating the issue in any depth, she started talking about death panels as if they're something that necessarily exist in any universal healthcare system, when in fact they don't exist in any. And the mere term 'death panel' is deliberately used so to be as emotive as possible. And - since you still seem to think that they do somehow exist despite what I've said- it would appear that Sarah Palin did a good job of convincing you without actually presenting any evidence.

Sarah Palin no longer has to be accountable to anybody, so she can spout as many lies, and misrepresentations as she likes. She's seemingly done an excellent job of convincing (some) Americans that she understands their concerns, and is taking full advantage of this by talking even more nonsense than she did when she was VP candidate.

 

[asaratis]

Who will decide which patients get treated?...which patients get the available transplant organs?...which patients get expensive tests and treatments?

I recall hearing that Obama reassured some that no government official would decide who gets what. I recall hearing of an amendment being introduced by a Republican to make sure that was the case. I recall hearing that amendment was defeated by the Dems.

I don't think Sarah Palin was trying to scare people...just to get a little closer to a true picture of what's being proposed. Somebody has to decide who lives and who dies...might as well let it be called a Death Panel.

The implication for "Who will decide which patients get treated?" is that some get treated while others don't. As I have already pointed out, this is not the case with universal healthcare. The issue isn't who gets treated and who doesn't, it is who get treated first. Generally, the person with greatest need gets treated before others. For urgent procedures, all get treated, most of the time as quickly as they would be here. For transplants, those who have been waiting longest will get treated. Presumably in the US, if you don't have insurance, then it doesn't matter how long you've been waiting - you won't get treated, but those with money will?

You are assuming that the availability of healthcare will exceed the demand for it. Rumor has it that many physicians will retire early rather than deal with government handling and reduced income for more work. Healthcare will suffer under government control...just as it has in other countries.

You also seem to assume that factors such as age and physical condition will have nothing to do with the patient's placement in the organ que.

For non-urgent (i.e. non life threatening conditions) normally those who have waited longest get treated first. It also becomes easier to treat all who need treatment by cutting down on unnecessary medical procedures (estimated to be as high as 30% based on a report I saw on CBS). If people want unnecessary medical procedures, they can pay for these themselves. This frees up time, resources and money to concentrate on those who do need urgent treatment.

You presume to know how the system will operate.

Do you know that health care is not denied to anyone that walks into an Emergency Room and asks for it? If Obama wants to do something for the uninsured, he should propose a way to insure them through government paid policies issued by existing insurance companies on a competitive basis. Let the government pay the premiums for the indigent. Let others get insurance wherever they wish.

So let me clarify again. In no universal healthcare system is there a person - or panel of people - who decides who lives and who dies. To believe it just because those on the right wing say it over and over again, is as ignorant as believing there were WMD in Iraq just because the right wing said it over and over again.

Likewise, to believe anything the left wing says will happen requires forgetting that this has not been the case so far. If you look at the record, empty promises prevail...coming from both sides.

Of course Sarah Palin was trying to scare people, and it worked. Rather than actually investigating the issue in any depth, she started talking about death panels as if they're something that necessarily exist in any universal healthcare system, when in fact they don't exist in any. And the mere term 'death panel' is deliberately used so to be as emotive as possible. And - since you still seem to think that they do somehow exist despite what I've said- it would appear that Sarah Palin did a good job of convincing you without actually presenting any evidence.

Sarah hasn't convinced me of it. The past actions of government have done that. I have little hope that government will ever be as efficient as the private sector in any endeavor.

Sarah Palin no longer has to be accountable to anybody, so she can spout as many lies, and misrepresentations as she likes. She's seemingly done an excellent job of convincing (some) Americans that she understands their concerns, and is taking full advantage of this by talking even more nonsense than she did when she was VP candidate.

I'm not basing my opinions on what Sarah Palin said or did. It is expected that politicians lie and misrepresent things.

 

[Academic]

My assumptions on how the system will operate are based on how universal health care has operated elsewhere. You mentioned the death panels, even though they've never been part of any universal healthcare system and have never been discussed as part of Obama's plan.

The fact that 'death panels' has got so much mileage despite being propaganda driven nonsense is an indication of how unintelligent much of the debate has been (in the wider sense, rather than in this thread). I am aware that healthcare is not denied to those who walk into the emergency room, but I am also aware that (for example) if someone gets cancer and doesn't have insurance, then they're most likely to end up bankrupt in an attempt to get healthy, and to me that just doesn't seem right.

I do agree that the private sector is nearly always more efficient than the government sector, but we need to ask questions about what is more important - an efficient system that excludes so many people (i.e. those who can't afford insurance) or a less efficient system that is more inclusive. I try to look at this issue in humanitarian terms rather than in left versus right terms.

 

[Toro]

Welcome to the message board.

I have a question:

Why do you people drive on the wrong side of the road?

There's a proposal to phase in driving on the right hand side of the road...

Welcome aboard.

 

[asaratis]

My assumptions on how the system will operate are based on how universal health care has operated elsewhere. You mentioned the death panels, even though they've never been part of any universal healthcare system and have never been discussed as part of Obama's plan.

I've seen little evidence of universal health care working well in other countries. I've heard liberals claim it does work and I've heard hundreds of nightmarish stories about how it doesn't work and people come to the US for major health care.

Of course Obama is not going to call it a "death panel". That would be scary. What we will have is rationing. That means denial to some for the benefit of others. That is something we do not have today...rationing.

The fact that 'death panels' has got so much mileage despite being propaganda driven nonsense is an indication of how unintelligent much of the debate has been (in the wider sense, rather than in this thread). I am aware that healthcare is not denied to those who walk into the emergency room, but I am also aware that (for example) if someone gets cancer and doesn't have insurance, then they're most likely to end up bankrupt in an attempt to get healthy, and to me that just doesn't seem right.

Then let the government pay for the premiums required to cover those risks. Let the privately held insurance companies compete for those policies.

I do agree that the private sector is nearly always more efficient than the government sector, but we need to ask questions about what is more important - an efficient system that excludes so many people (i.e. those who can't afford insurance) or a less efficient system that is more inclusive. I try to look at this issue in humanitarian terms rather than in left versus right terms.

I have humanitarian heart strings too, but collectivism is not in my bag. Were it not for capitalism, I would not be able to contribute to people that actually need help. There are those that can afford insurance but choose not to have it. They should not be counted among the "uninsured". Obama's 47 million figure is a lie...among others that he tells about the health care deform package being railroaded through the liberal congress he has infected.

We have agreed upon one issue. That's fair enough. Perhaps we will discuss this and other things in the proper threads down the line. This is your introductory thread.

Again, welcome to the fray.

...and remember...there is a cure for liberalism.