Another neo-con heard from

[amicus]

Seacat....a very thoughtful and informative post...thank you...

The practice of medicine is pretty much in a category all its own, not really comparable to any other, I think.

It may see crass of me to advocate that it be treated as a commodity...like any other..but that is only in terms of the ability of the marketplace to manage supply and demand without the use of the power of government.

It is, again in my eyes, a disgrace that affordable medical care is not readily available to all who need it. However, I do not think that care can be provided by government run programs in either the Canadian or British manner.

I do continue to maintain that a free market place with the requirements required for a person to practice medicine be largely removed, would fill the need.

Litigation that inhibits doctors and hospitals from functioning in terms of malpractice insurance is a problem I am not qualified to address.

Those were tragic cases you referred to and it pains me to be reminded that such things happen...but surely they do.

I heard something on the news the other day about the current administrations effort to pass legislation dealing with that issue, but again, I do not fully understand tort law and cannot force myself to investigate.

Perhaps someone knowledgeable will offer some ideas and we can all learn....


again thank you for your comments....

amicus...

 

[Just-Legal]

Just Legal said:
You are not being ignored dear Just Legal....but I thought in my response to thebullet...and others...that I addressed your questions...

Last first....licensing.....possessing a piece of paper sold by government does not necessarily guarantee that the person who bought that piece of paper and fulfilled the requirements to possess that paper(license) is qualified to perform the actions permitted by the license....

Even with licensing there are 'bad' doctors out there, incompetent ones, shoddy ones who leave surgical instruments within body cavities...make other terrible and sometimes fatal mistakes in diagnosis, treatment prescriptions and follow up.

You, like many, seem to wish to place your trust in a beady eyed little bureaucrat rather than make your own determination as to the quality of service you receive from another human being.

There should be standards of course but I am not convinced that 'government' is the agency that should set those standards.

It has always been difficult and seems to become more so as time goes by, to communicate the concept of freedom to people who have never experienced it and never even really considered it.

I regularly talk with several over there in Limey land and I am appalled at some of the things you folks accept as 'normal'. For one thing, young people trying to find acceptable housing, even an apartment, may have to wait years before they can leave their parents home.

Housing shortages...why? There are no housing shortages in America...the free market place provides what the public demands. It is my understanding that housing in Britain is in some way controlled by your government...is that true?


Ahh...I must leave.....perhaps we can continue later...


amicus...

Actually I don't put my faith in a beady eyed little bureaucrat when it comes to medication, I trust someone who has worked in the industry for nearly 40+ years. And I am more than willing to make my voice heard about my Drs.

Would you rather there was self regulation over Drs? The Government manages to be a somewhat independant (as independant as anything can be these days) body.

As for the "things your Drs do" comment... that is NOT a UK only problem.

On the Housing issue... thats BEFORE they can leave their parents home. And it depends on where they are. If someone is made unintentionally homeless the councils aim to have them housed permanently very quicky... the actual timescale escapes me.

 

[TheEarl]

Amicus: As you are wishing that an informed party comes on this thread, I'd like to say that I am an English citizen and therefore have used the NHS. I have also used private medical facilities. My girlfriend is a pharmacist, her mother is a nurse, one of my best friends is a nurse and a friend of the family is a doctor. So I'm reasonably well informed on the issues.

I understand that this is a long post, but I'd appreciate if you took the time to read it to the end, as I have taken the time to address some of your points and would appreciate the courtesy being returned.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have no future of any kind until you start to learn why this is THE ONLY FREE NATION ON THIS PLANET.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeez, I wonder how Canada feels about that statement. Or Australia, or New Zealand, or Jamaica, or Germany, or the UK, or ..."

Quoted from threadstarter thebullet....

(editing...by the way cuz, I think all the mentioned nations above have high taxation, socialized medicine, and a lot less 'freedom' than you imply)

Why is the UK not free? We have free elections, free democracy, free media and the right to choose what we do and don't like about our government, with a lot more control over our Parliament than the average voter in the USA. There is low taxation and the UK is regarded as a mostly 'right-wing' country. In many ways we have more freedom than you do: why does a nationalised health service make us not free?

I personally read all your stories in the 'Death by Fucking' series that morphed into the 'E-kids' stories, gave you a 5 vote on most everyone...or refrained from voting at all. But, I stopped reading your stories when they went blatantly political

You are quite welcome, in this country, to your political viewpoint, whatever it may be, but like the religious right, when you present your viewpoint in such a way as to demean all other points of view and when you present those views with religious certainty, as if the rest of the world of thought was beneath consideration, it is no longer a pleasure to read.

Good point.

The issue is health care, national health care, socialized medicine, call it what you will.

My question is, how do you justify confiscating the wealth of the common man by force (by taxation) to support such a system, and secondly, how do you justify using force to compel those in the medical field to accept the system?

I justify it by saying that health care is something that should be available to all. IMHO It is a basic human right. Who are you to deny people the right to health?

Confiscating the wealth of the common man by force, as you so colourfully put it, is something that is necessary in economics. Tax pays for national defence. Tax pays for infrastructure, such as roads. Tax pays for government itself. Tax pays for police. Or would you rather that the police only protected people that could afford their services? These are things that the private sector cannot, or will not provide on their own and therefore must be provided by the state and that means confiscating the wealth of the common man. It is a fact of life.

Secondly: I think you'll find that doctors are not compelled to accept the system. If they do not like working for the government, then they can work in the private sector, providing the private medical care that co-exists with the NHS. You seem to be assuming that government controlled healthcare bans all other forms. I'd suggest doing some research before proceeding with this line of argument.

I think that neither you nor any of the extreme liberal left have the audacity to come out and say that you and your vision are so intellectually superiour to we the common man that you will force us to do your bidding, 'in our own best interest' or for the greater good....

For you see, that is the very heart and core of your beliefs: that you and your ilk somehow have a 'moral' right to forcefully impose upon society your greater vision.

On the contrary - I believe it is for the greater good. Or would you prefer that the government didn't tax at all? Roads would fall into disrepair. Gangs of criminals would walk the streets because the police were disbanded in favour of security firms that only catered to the wealthy. Terrorists would be able to walk anyware, unopposed, because they would not be monitored by government funded army and secret services. The government would have to seek sponsorship from companies and would be puppets of multi-nationals. Pure freedom is pure anarchy and no tax means no law, no police, no services, no free government, no security.

Social Democracies, such as Canada and Great Britain, under socialist influence embarked on a great humanitarian experiment of providing free health care to all.

That experiment failed, as doctors fled those countries and healthcare became like the post office, another government agency that doesnt give a damn how long people wait for service.

A failed experiment. That somehow manages to provide top-quality healthcare to millions. Explain how that has failed?

There are waiting lists and there are severe problems with the NHS. Ironically enough, this has been caused by right-wing governments trying to privatise parts of the health service. They have skimped on quality and tried to cut costs, resulting in a lower-quality product.

Also, I suggest you research the NHS before making sweeping statements. The NHS isn't a govenment agency that doesn't give a damn how long you wait, because the government is accountable. Every government has tried to make it better, simply because the public will kill them if they do not.

Also doctors have not fled the NHS. There are actually increasing numbers of graduating doctors joining the health service and countless more in the private sector. Can you explain how this tallys with your statement, or have you made sweeping claim that backs up your opinion without any weight of facts.

The only answer, the only solution, is to open the field of medicine to free market competition...to eliminate most of the licensing requirements, to relax the control of the professionals and the bureaucrats and let the market place work.

I guarantee you, there would be as many medical clinics as there are fast food joints in every community in the country.

In a free marketplace, supply is always determined by demand. Demand is altered by the price that a good or service is available at. In economics, this is represented by a simple curve - the higher the price, the less people will want a good.

So, let's open the field. There is only a limited number of doctors and nurses and also a limited number with the capability of becoming a doctor or nurse. So therefore personnel is at a premium. To staff your clinic, you'll have to pay top dollar. Therefore you must charge top dollar. Demand goes down as not everyone can afford your service. Voila no more waiting lists.

But wait - there are people who cannot afford your service and yet have apendicitis, broken legs and tetanus. Well, they'll die soon enough when their simple infections go untreated and then that problem is solved.

Or, we could open the field completely as you seem to suggest. Anyone who wants to be a doctor can be one. Doesn't matter if you're capable or not. This opens up supply of personnel, so the price will inevitably fall. Cheap healthcare for all on a sliding scale. If you can afford it, you can get top notch healthcare. Those who can't afford it get the cheap stuff and die after their appendicitis wasn't diagnosed.

Like it or not, it takes 7 years to train a doctor. That 7 years is going to limit the supply, no matter how much bureaucracy is removed. So either poor people die because there aren't enough doctors, or poor people die because there aren't enough competent doctors.

Or alternatively, you follow the British model. If you are rich, you go with private health insurance and get private treatment - quick and top notch. If you can't afford that, go with the NHS, slower and they might provide a lower, but still exceedingly competent service. No unnecessary deaths. I can see why you hate this system.

Medicine and I might add education and retirement plans should be treated as just another commodity in the market place. Then and only then will the system provide adequate services at an affordable price for all.

Government can not, has never and never will supply goods and services the meet the requirements of society.

Have you ever studied economics Amicus? Fascinating subject. I am no expert, but one of the principle tenets is that the free market will not and cannot ever provide some goods. I refer back to my example scenario of no taxation and extend it to: Would you like lower quality teaching, because you can't afford for your kids to go to a better school? Or would you like your kids to recieve no education because you can't afford for them to go to school? The free market won't supply these services for all as you so blithely suggest, if it even supplies them at all. It doesn't have the capability to. Look at countries in Africa, where the state cannot afford public education. Does every child go to school there, or are there some who cannot afford the 'adequate services at an affordable price for all'?

I have traveled in just about every state in the union, most of canada, some of Mexico, most of western europe.

So can you tell us of your time in England? How long did you spend there? How many of our public services did you use? Did you use the NHS? How are you qualified to give judgement on our medical system if you have not been a citizen of the UK and thus recieved both the benefits and the deficits of the system. A 3 month stay in Australia does not make me an expert on Aboriginal politics.

I also owned an operated a restaurant and have worked in other eating establishments and I KNOW all about health department food inspections and licensing procedures....

Including those in England?

You are of the misguided perception that 'government rules and inspections and licensing' account for, establish and maintain quality service for products and services. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

It is the integrity of each shop owner and the desire to have return customers that drives the quest for providing quality service.

Integrity doesn't come into it. I'm sure there are many nice folks out there who'd run a nice clean hospital, but there are just as many others who would cut costs to increase their profit. Free-market uses profit as an incentive and corners can be cut very secretively, which would give the semblence of a good product, but the owner would be scooping off money. The straw house would come tumbling down, but the owner would simply withdraw his funds and move on, richer than before. After all, it wouldn't be illegal to use untrained nurses. Or to use un-police-checked porters. Or to use cheaper, experimental drugs. Or to cut back on staffing to skeleton levels. People aren't nice. Human nature means that people will lie and cheat and steal to get what they want. This is why legislation is there. If people were nice, then there'd be no need for a law against stealing, because no-one would do it.

and to be perfectly blunt with you, I would much rather seek service from a private supplier of medical care than I would one run by bureaucrats at any level.

True, but specious. Bureaucrats don't run the NHS. Senior doctors do. You'd get more bureaucrats in a free-market, simply because the owner wouldn't want any superfluous pennies being spent that could more comfortably live in his wallet. Or are we discussing altruistic philanthropic hospital owners?

Your built in bias against a free society, whether you claim socialism or not, is a matter for you to deal with, not me.

This nation...this free nation...was built by individual entrepeneurs offering quality goods and services without guidance, control, restriction or regulation by government. and if you get the hell out of the way...we will continue to do so.

I'm not biased against a free society. I'm not even biased against a free-market society. These are two very different things, despite your ludicrous attempts to make them synonymous. I am against a completely unregulated society, where there is no law, no government intervention and nothing to stop people from being the utter bastards that the majority are. Ever read "Jennifer Government"? Or watched the film "Escape from LA"?

Yes I am familiar with heathcare, I nursed my mother through five heart attacks over a four year period. I worked in a hospital as a security guard for a while and learned much of the inner workings. My daughter is a health care professional, a Captain in the Air Force...

And if you were a poor man, you would undoubtedly accept your mother getting no or atrocious care through her five strokes? With the pure free-market system you are suggesting, I doubt she'd even have survived her first.

You learned much of the inner working of the US system whilst working as a security guard? So where is your knowledge of a public health service springing from. Or could it be that your opinions are founded on noticed more than speculation and hypothesising?

The stringent laws supposedly to protect the public from charlatans and snake oil doctors may be taken for only that if you wish to believe it.

7 years to produce a doctor. Or can you produce them in less time? Would you like to be treated by our new batch of 1 year trained doctors? They're extra-cheap!

While I admire and respect the profession, it is in my eyes, not above the nature of a guild, an association of like professionals who have gained status and desire to maintain it by exclusion and by tenure in the field.

To become a doctor in England, you must complete your doctorate in medicine (or a related discipline) at university. Jobs are available, so if you are clever enough to get your doctorate, then you can work as a doctor. How many entry barriers can you spot there? I see only intelligence as a Blackman's Law limiting factor on the system. I have no knowledge of the US system of qualification, but I can tell you that is the system in the un-free UK.

I maintain that if the market were permitted to function freely, with minimal control and restriction that many, like many military personel who offer specific areas of treatment, that there would be much more minor level, clinical facilities offering services that do not require a full fledged doctor of medicine.

This at least is a good idea. However it is not the universal panacea that you are talking it up as. What services might be downgraded to these lesser doctors? I guarantee there's not enough to solve the giant hole in your reasoning, as this system is alreay being implemented in the NHS, with so-called 'super-nurses' being acting at a point just below a doctor. Less training than a doctor and takes all of the 'lesser' tasks. Still doesn't solve the shortage of top-quality qualified medical personnel. And we know what happens when supply is restricted. The price goes up and the poor people die.

It is my personal opinion that a large percentage of medical treatment paid for by insurance is mostly unneeded and cosmetic but nonetheless occupies the time of medical professionals and raises the cost of treatment in general.

True. Unhelpful, as it will always be a problem, no matter which system you espouse, but true.

Not that I would compare the two fields of endeavor, but a Union welder drawing $38.00 an hour does the same work as a non Union welder who is paid $12.00 an hour. Same job, same quality work, Union versus non Union.

So (Expensive doctor with 7 years of training) = (Cheap doctor with certificate from the Anglia Polytechnic). It is not a cabal (at least in England. There are just not enough brains willing to fill the holes. If there were, the NHS would employ them, because the government is already taking flak over this subject.

Last first....licensing.....possessing a piece of paper sold by government does not necessarily guarantee that the person who bought that piece of paper and fulfilled the requirements to possess that paper(license) is qualified to perform the actions permitted by the license....

Even with licensing there are 'bad' doctors out there, incompetent ones, shoddy ones who leave surgical instruments within body cavities...make other terrible and sometimes fatal mistakes in diagnosis, treatment prescriptions and follow up.

True enough, but I'd trust a person who had one a hell of a lot more than a person without. If someone tells me, "Let me look at that broken leg, I've had 7 years of medical training and I've been assessed as competent in repairing broken legs," I would accept his help in a nanosecond. If they say - "I'm fairly sure I can fix that legs for you, but I've not had any real training and no-one's tested me to see if I can do it," then my response would probably be a swift right-hook if they tried to come near me.

The idea of a license is that it is supposed to tell you who is competent and who isn't. There are occasional mistakes and excpetions to the rule. However, take away the license and you get no idea who is competent and who isn't. I'll stick with the licenses, thank you.

You, like many, seem to wish to place your trust in a beady eyed little bureaucrat rather than make your own determination as to the quality of service you receive from another human being.

Cf. my remark on how many bureaucrats will find their way into private medical care. Anyway, it will not be down to you as to the quality of medical care you recieve. It will be down to the amount of money you have. Given the choice we'd all choose the highest quality. But supply is limited, so price rises to reduce demand. Therefore poor people get crap care. QED again.

There should be standards of course but I am not convinced that 'government' is the agency that should set those standards.

So you suggest that another agency shoudl set the standards? Who? Anyone else in your free-market will be affected by the thought of profit, which will skew their decision to whatever makes the most money for them. At least the government has the ideal of neutrality.

It has always been difficult and seems to become more so as time goes by, to communicate the concept of freedom to people who have never experienced it and never even really considered it.

Oh. My. God. You honestly believe we are not free, don't you? This is arrogance beyond belief. We exercise more control over who governs us than those in the US do. We exercise more power over our local councils than you in the US do. We have a free media, a free television chanel (which has no need to pander to sponsors). Yet you are free because you have completely privatised medical care. In-fucking-credible.

I regularly talk with several over there in Limey land and I am appalled at some of the things you folks accept as 'normal'. For one thing, young people trying to find acceptable housing, even an apartment, may have to wait years before they can leave their parents home.

Housing shortages...why? There are no housing shortages in America...the free market place provides what the public demands. It is my understanding that housing in Britain is in some way controlled by your government...is that true?

Let me point out something on a map to you. Regard the USA. It's pretty big isn't it? Regard England. It's fairly small in comparison, isn't it? Look at the relative population density in both countries. Now think about why there may be a housing shortage in England.

Housing is a free market in England. Completely free. There are council houses, which is housing provided by the government to people who are unfortunate, but this is a tiny percentage of the housing and has no impact on the market at large. Housing is going up as fast as possible, but there is almost literally no room.

Limit on the supply = higher price. The free market demonstrably does provide for the supply, but it does so by raising the price, so that those who can't afford it drop out of the market.


The sheer scale of your ignorance is astounding. You spout free-market, yet know nothing about simple supply-and-demand economics (my knowledge of which was supplied by that free education you knocked). You denigrate public health service and yet are ignorant even of the fact that it runs parallel to the private, rather than instead of. You talk of housing shortages in England and yet don't even realise that it is a simple lack of space.

Please, do some research. Understand the subject you are spouting about before embarrassing yourself in public.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

The Earl said...in part....

"Amicus: As you are wishing that an informed party comes on this thread, I'd like to say that I am an English citizen and therefore have used the NHS. I have also used private medical facilities. My girlfriend is a pharmacist, her mother is a nurse, one of my best friends is a nurse and a friend of the family is a doctor. So I'm reasonably well informed on the issues.

I understand that this is a long post, but I'd appreciate if you took the time to read it to the end, as I have taken the time to address some of your points and would appreciate the courtesy being returned."



Well, my Brit friend, I did as you asked, took the time to read it to the end. The tone of your response does not readily elicit a response as you mainly disagreed with everything and implied ignorance as my motivation. Does not make me feel like spending a great deal of time to go point by point and illuminate your errors and obfuscations.

Your problem in comprehending human freedom and dignity appears to me to be both a philosophical and a psycholgical one.

Your belief that mankind is basically evil, will lie cheat and steal to obtain his desires, reflects the attitude of many who justify oppression by saying, 'oh but it for your own good...man is basically so evil that he must be controlled and regulated..."

A simple consideration of the progress of mankind through recorded history...rising from simple beginnings to the exploration of space...should tell you just the opposite: namely that mankind is basically good and will strive to overcome ignorance and fear and work for greater freedom for each inidividual.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit...." carefully enumerated rights, bolstered by the Bill of Rights...was crafted in that manner for very good reasons.

You have no 'rights' to healthcare, education, housing...or any other commodity produced by the labor of other men. The definition of 'human rights' refers to those innate 'rights' that one possesses as a result of being born human. Every individual has the 'right' to his own life, liberty and the right to pursue his own happiness.

There are no other 'innate rights' by definition, that you can claim.

Never once did I claim Anarchy, a complete lack of laws, as the desired or preferred system.

Far from it. We assign government the obligation to protect our sovreignty and give it permission to maintain a military force. We assign our government the obligation to protect our property rights and give it permission to create and maintain a local police force. We assign our government the obligation protect us from fraud and give it permission to create a court system to resolve differences between citizens.

We choose from among ourselves certain representatives to meet in certain places and certain times and to legislate such items as we choose THAT DO NOT VIOLATE any of those innate rights we are possessed with.

I sense that you are being somewhat less than candid when you speak of your political affiliations. The bulk of your post was an attempt to demonstrate why a free society and a free market place cannot work. I suppose you advocate some mixture of a free/slave society as a golden mean.

I rather see the goodness in mankind, the curiosity, the idealism, the hope, the aspirations to rise above what he was born with and leave better in his wake.

I see your fear and loathing of individual freedom as the largest impediment to individual liberty. It has always been thus: either a God or a King sacrificing the individual for the benefit of the 'greater good'. Christ, what an obscene statement, 'the greater good...'

Your almost insane hatred of the free, unregulated echange of goods and services between individuals, based on your wrongful assumptions about the true nature of man, colors every word you write.

Had I not heard that same left wing crap for nigh on to 50 years, perhaps I might be surprised...but I am not.

The intellectual, scientific and artistic history of man is a marvel to behold. Free men with bold ideas have fought your kind throughout the centuries and, in the end, won out over fear and ignorance. We will continue to do so.

You confirm my thoughts about the moral bankruptcy of mainstream European thought. Just like the religious right in this country who dream of a fundamental christian government imposing its will upon the people; you yearn to return to the glory days of colonial england when you ruled the world and the sun never set on the British Empire.

The French and Germans has the same mindset, it would not surprise me to learn that the Dutch still mourn their colonial period, and Spain and the Catholics...

The only valid, real and rational purpose of any government is to protect the rights of the people...the innate rights, not your fabricated 'social rights'

Meek men and meek nations legislate for security, they want a guaranteed promise of all the essentials of life; and for that those meek men and nations are willing to sacrifice the only thing that really makes us human, our mind and the freedom to use it for our own succor.

I abhor your philosophy of the hatred of man, the fear of freedom, the distrust of the individual.

One must conclude that Europe in general has nothing to contribute to the 21st Century. Perhaps India...perhaps China will take up the challenge to follow the United States in our continuing quest for liberty and justice for all.

Then again, perhaps we will continue on alone.

I feel sadness for the millions of Europeans left in the third world backwash of social democracies that have no future.

I am quite certain you will find this reply inadequate. But keep in mind, it is so easy to defend the concept of human freedom and liberty and even easier to point out the oppression implied when you and yours advocate the benevolent dictatorship of the sacrifice of the individual for the heinous 'greater good' of your utopian societies.

An old poly sci class of mine...correlated the production of works of art and science with the amount of individual freedom in any one given country.

Why is there nothing new...in any field coming from Europe any more?

Consider that, my friends...

amicus....

 

[TheEarl]

It's 3.23am here. My insomnia has kicked in with a vengeance, so I'm back to see what has been said. And oh my amicus, you have provided my biggest laugh in a long time (overthrowing Edward Teach's joke about kneeling in Christian romance).

A synonymisation of free society and personal liberty? An economic theory founded on the basis that men won't act for personal gain? Outrageous statements about political affiliations of Europeans?

I have to say amicus, you have made my day, if not my week. Thank you for the laughs.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

Ahh...Earl, you join my long list of closet collectivists who can only attack freedom and never defend or even advocate your own brand of slavery. I thought as much.


amicus...

 

[minsue]

Ahh...Earl, you join my long list of closet collectivists who can only attack freedom and never defend or even advocate your own brand of slavery. I thought as much.


amicus...

You are an interesting little person, amicus

 

[thebullet]

Amicus:
I used to think that you are an idealist. I now realize that you are just an idiot. Or you are pulling everyone's chain with your ridiculous opinions?

No one is dumb enough to stick to the garbage that you spout in these little epistles of yours. According to you, everyone who disagrees with your extremist views is by definition a socialist. None of us understands what it is to be free?

Tell me, when you were a little boy did a doctor drop you on your head?

I admit that I almost admire the pristine mixture of arogance and ignorance that spews from you. Hitler would have been proud. Karl Marks would have been proud. Just as they did, you spew idealism untainted by logic. Yours is the way, the truth and the light. Fuck everyone else.

You must have brown eyes, Amicus. Because you are full of shit.

 

[Guest]

You are an interesting little person, amicus

Little being the operative word.

I haven't read Amicus in some time and only read this latest cos of Earl's well thought out post. I find it hard to believe Amicus speaks/reads English. I hope he bequests his brain to science.

Perdita

 

[TheEarl]

I'm moving house today. I'm in a very, very bad mood. And yet the phrase 'closet collectivists' still has me sniggering.

Think I may save this thread for future perusal the next time I need cheering up. Thank you again Amicus.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

With the occasional addition of a new voice, the chorus of the outraged left displays a modicum of harmony.

Never did I suspect that 'rounding up the usual suspects...' would reach a crescendo of disparate voices.

god works in mysterious ways, I guess, she do, she do, doodah, doodah....

wunnerful wunnerful


amicus applauds as the goose steps fade off stage...

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[TheEarl]

Ignorance is bliss.

And some of the ignorance displayed on this thread has made me very cheerful.

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

I am old enough to remember people who suffered debilitating conditions because they couldn't afford health care in the UK.

My father, my mother and at least one of my aunts had to live for months, years in my aunt's case, with unpleasant consequences of illness because they could not afford the treatment yet they were not really poor. Market economics and inadequacy of affordable health insurance meant that the cost was beyond their means.

The National Health Service changed that dramatically. It was introduced by a Socialist Government but no party in this country has tried to abolish it because it works.

I have used the health service many times. I have private medical insurance that covers some conditions and particularly those which are not necessarily life-threatening e.g. hip replacement. I have paid directly for medical care when I didn't want to wait the week or so that would have been necessary to get free treatment. That is my choice. I have that freedom of choice BECAUSE I HAVE MONEY.

A society that does not provide for and protect its weaker members is a society that believes 'Might (or money) is right'.

If there was no National Health Service those who cannot earn money through physical or mental incapacity would have to rely on charity. We do have many charities that complement health service provision but would struggle to replace that provision.

If you have an acute condition such as a heart attack the National Health Service provides the best and fastest treatment. If you have a chronic condition that lasts and/or recurs for years your medical insurance will limit your cover for that condition or cease to cover it. The National Health Service continues to provide medical care for life if you have a chronic condition.

Our National Health Service is NOT perfect. It cannot meet all the demands on it because while resources are finite the demand for health care grows faster than the provision. The demand is often stimulated by drug companies. If they produce a new drug that is a better (but more expensive) treatment for a particular condition they will publicise it widely and generate the demand.

When the cost of visiting a doctor was half the weekly wage people only went to a doctor when they could not avoid it. Now that there is no charge doctors' surgeries are part-filled with people who do not really need medical attention. If it is raining, General Practioner doctors have a quieter day.

If someone is injured or seriously ill they do not have to ask themselves 'Will my insurance cover it?' or 'Can I afford the cost of treatment'. They know that health care is available for them.

The UK government is trying to manage the demand for health care and providing alternatives to visits to a doctor or GP such as NHS Direct or Nurse-led clinics.

Our National Health Service is expensive. All medical care services are, anywhere in the world. It has been a consistent political decision since 1945 that we should afford it. The political arguments are about the relative proportions of free and paid-for services and managing supply and demand. What is never challenged is the need to provide timely care for those who are injured or have life-threatening conditions.

This system was introduced as a result of a manifesto promise in 1944. It continues to exist as a result of freely expressed choice by our electorate.

Og

 

[TheEarl]

Ogg, the problem is that the NHS can't be a freely expressed choice of our electorate. England is not a free country at all because of its wicked choice of having a public health service.

Still sniggering,

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

Ogg, the problem is that the NHS can't be a freely expressed choice of our electorate. England is not a free country at all because of its wicked choice of having a public health service.

Still sniggering,

The Earl

I know that.

My remarks were addressed, not to amicus, but to the other readers of this thread who may not wholly appreciate that we chose and continue to support this system willingly.

Og

 

[Shock Chick]

I doubt any bugger is still reading this thread with anything approaching a serious take on it all.



Shocky - also proud and wholly supportive of the NHS (and quite obviously nuts. )

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Ignorance is bliss.

If ignorance is bliss then this place is Heaven.

 

[Guest]

Goose steps? Outraged Left? Oh la la, I am zo verry confused.

Perdita

 

[amicus]

Dear Ogbashan...again, thank you for the time and effort to project your viewpoint in a sincere manner.

Unfortunately, sincerity and belief is not always the end all and be all of an issue.

I had to do a little research to recall the exact years of the 'Brain Drain' in England and other European countries...and in Canada.

The 'brain drain' in brief is the amazing exodus of gifted intellectuals practicing medicine, science and basic research who fled their home countries to escape welfare statism(state socialism) high taxation and control and regulation imposed upon those most capable by those least capable.

Many countries banned emigration of skilled scientists and doctors and kept those people by force.

What was left to practice medicine and science in most European countries was the dregs of the professions, which accounts for the low performance and low quality service and which has taken those 'welfare states' out of competition in the world market ideas.

I can fully understand those who still speak to support the actions within their own countries, what else could you do but defend what is left and then justify your actions.


These are but a few of the thousands of sources listed on line, I did not have time to pick and choose from many, but this will give an idea as to the validity of my contentions....



http://www.lib.uwo.ca/business/braindrain.html


http://www.public.asu.edu/~adelsonr/his352/contemporary.html

A. In 1946, the National Insurance and National Health Service Acts were passed, two mainstays of the welfare state.
B. National Insurance consolidated acts passed since the late 19th century, provided security against unemployment, sickness and disability benefits, maternity and death benefits, and payments to retired persons, widows, and orphans, paid for by weekly employee contributions supplemented by the National Exchequer. This was enhanced by the National Assistance Board to help those whose benefits fell below a specified minimum, which actually cost the British Government 11.3% of its overall budget in 1950, in contrast to 13.6% of its budget in 1938.
C. National Health went into effect in 1948, and within a year 95% of the British had signed up for it and 97% of the doctors participated. National Health became the most popular act Labour adopted, with bad health regarded as a social misfortune rather than a personal failure. Great strides were made in attacking widespread disease. Doctors were paid on the basis of the number of patients (2200 was the average per year); and the number of doctors in Britain increased from 36,500 in 1948 to 49,000 in 1958. Not just the working-class, but all were now covered and paid for specialists as well as GPs, and included free dental, eye care and prescriptions. The initial problem was with shortage of hospitals, equipment, and staff, not abuse of patients or doctors themselves.
http://www.coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P153_0_1_0


In this post, Glenn Reynolds offers some thoughts (his own and those of others) on what makes America great, immigration, and the "brain drain" phenomenon. I have a few observations on the subject of American greatness and its sources, which will have to wait for another post. But here, I'd like to offer some thoughts about the "brain drain," a development which first attracted significant notice in Great Britain about forty years ago, as documented in this New York Times story of February 11, 1964:
The Labor party is calling for a Government study of the emigration of British scientists to the United States, a problem known here as the "brain drain." Labor's action...followed the disclosure that Prof. Ian Bush and his research team are leaving Birmingham University for the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology in Shrewsbury, Mass.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


The easy conclusion is that men of intellectual capacity will not function in a slave or welfare state where their services are demanded and not compensated.

Intellectual integrity requires intellectual freedom and when a nation chooses to sacrifice its best minds to the great maw of the 'common good' then men of quality leave.

They do not leave for more money...they leave to find freedom from oppression.

amicus veritas......

 

[Goldie Munro]

Why is there nothing new...in any field coming from Europe any more?

amicus....

Your complete arrogance astounds me. Also your assumption that those who do not believe in a free market only see the evil in mankind!

 

[Guest]

Will... not... get... wound... up...

I won't get dragged into any long winded discussion, because, quite honestly, it's pointless.

However, I will just make this one point.

Life Expectancy in 20 Countries in the developed world, according to the Centers for Disease Control, USA.

Country Age
Japan 79.1
Iceland 77.4
Switz. 77.6
Sweden 77.1
Spain 76.6
W. Germ. 75.8
Britain 75.3
Israel 75.2
Austria 75.1
U.S. 75.0
Denmark 74.9
Finland 74.8
Malta 74.8
Belgium 74.3
Italy 75.5
Czech. 71.0
Poland 71.0
Yugo. 71.0
Romania 69.9
U.S.S.R. 69.8

I think you can see what I'm getting at.

Lou

 

[Just-Legal]

I will now referr everyone to my "Something to remember" thread.

 

[Guest]

 

[amicus]

Tatelou wrote:

"However, I will just make this one point.

Life Expectancy in 20 Countries in the developed world, according to the Centers for Disease Control, USA."

~~~

Just what point is that, Tat? Life in a bubble from birth to death might well exceed 100 years...so?

If you are implying that the presence of a program of socialized medicine provides a longer lifespan...perhaps you are right and then again, perhaps you are not...and perhaps even longevity does not contain quality of that extended life...none of that is really germane...

You seem to argue from the point of view that the end justifies the means. I reject that, out of hand as no one, ever, has the right to impose by force any system on a free people...no matter how beneficial you may think it is...


amicus...