European-style welfare states are lovely!

[Prophet 451]

Can someone explain to me why so many Americans seem to think a "European-style welfare state" is such a terrible thing? They seem to think that it's somehow cheating if there's no chance of someone starving. I live in a European-style welfare state here in England (at least, until the ConDems dismantle it but that's a seperate rant) and here's a couple of noteworthy things about it. Now, different European nations do things slightly differently but I'm English so I'm doing this about England.

- Healthcare is free at point of delivery. It's funded through general taxation. There is no such thing as a medical bankruptcy here. No-one ever has to skip healthcare for the sake of cost. There's a small fee for filling a prescription (about $15) that's mainly designed to stop you bugging your doctor with stupid stuff that only needs a couple of asprin but the poor, old and disabled are exempt from that. Is the NHS perfect? Hell no but it is better than the US system. We still have private insurers here and people still use them for all kinds of reasons. Some like luxury hospitals, some want to skip waiting lists (or, as they should be called, availability lists), some just want the status symbol but because the NHS provides a bottom level of service, private insurers have to offer a better service at a decent price. I always thought that was the essence of capitalism.

- Very few people starve or become homeless because they can't find a job. The system we have set up here keeps paying you unemployment benefits for as long as you're honestly looking for a job. Doesn't matter if it takes six months or five years, if you're making an honest effort to find work, you get unemployment benefits (which aren't much but enough to keep body and soul together). If the only work you can find pays a pittance, the system will make up the difference between that and unemployment benefits.

[MichaelMcGuire]

1. A little OT and as you say "separate rant"

Last edited Wed Jan 25, 2012, 07:55 AM - Edit history (2)

ConDims are both looking to increase the market in the English NHS (Internal Market). Also Labour aren't even thinking about taking out private involvement in the (English version) NHS in fact the only saving grace or difference was the level of involvement, but are also for increasing it from current levels. I thank god the Scottish NHS has taken a different route and is able to take the important decisions effecting the NHS.

{edit}
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/29/scotland-nhs-snp-lansley?CMP=twt_gu

Here's a article if your wondering what the hell I'm talking about. Which simply and briefly touches the differences but its easy to read, and for once a rarity for the UK press in being factual at least.

[Prophet 451]

4. Thanks

Fascinating to see what can be done when the government in charge isn't hellbent on destroying the old dear. There are only rare occasions I envy the Scottish but the NHS is one of them.

[pampango]

2. Indeed they are, but republicans worry that Americans might get ideas from Europe so

they relentlessly bash Europe's social democracies as "socialist failures". Our repubs know their future is not bright if Americans ever really understand what they are missing.

[rurallib]

9. I am surprised that Republicans don't call for ending the use of European

based languages.

[pampango]

10. Don't give them any ideas. Most republicans may think English was made in America.

If they find out we are using a "European-based" language, they may want to get rid of it for having too close an association with "socialism".

[mr blur]

3. You're absolutely right.

I have MS and without the NHS/Welfare system, I'd be dead. In fact, in order to get my diagnosis (12 years ago) I was at the time able to pay for a private MRI scan ( to avoid a wait) and it was the same hospital, same scanner and same doctors as the NHS uses. It wasn't any "better", just a little quicker.

It always astonishes me when I read of people in the US asking, "Why should I pay for someone else to have medical treatment?" I mean, don't you get it? We all pay to help each other. It's why I' m proud to be a Socialist.

[Prophet 451]

5. I don't consider myself a socialist

Except in that overused American way where everyone to the left of Cheney is considered a socialist but I do think that some things are too important to be left to the whims of the market and healthcare is one of them.

[izquierdista]

6. They think Europe is still bombed out buildings and starving people

Face it, since 1980 when American families had to have TWO breadwinners to pay the bills because of Reaganomics, no one has had time to visit Europe and see for themselves.

-They have NO idea that the trains there run faster than you can drive on an American Interstate.
-They have NO idea that the stores are stocked just as well as American stores.
-They have NO idea that you can fly around without a pre-boarding colonoscopy.
-They have NO idea that you can live just fine without owning a car.
-They have NO idea that wine costs the same as soda pop and that you can have it for lunch.
-They have NO idea that you can get an education without having to mortgage your future.

The one thing that Americans can experience without going to Europe is being herded with the flow of traffic through an IKEA warehouse and having some cheap and tasty Swedish meatballs at the end.

[CTyankee]

7. Americans ignorance about Europe is mind blowing!

The RW has repeated and repeated its tirade against "socialism" and the people who believe it don't know what it is they're believing. It's some kind of giant myth.

The OP was right in saying that Americans believe that socialism is "cheating." That was the exact word that I heard from the lady who cut my hair down at Supercuts when I told her about the free child care and support of women when they have their babies, particularly in Sweden, with generous maternity leave benefits. She looked shocked and then said "That's CHEATING!"
I thought it was an odd thing to say at the time...who did she think was cheating whom? My guess is that she thought women were scamming the system. This poor woman was working her tail off for practically slave wages ($12 for a simple cut, at the senior citizen level). I truly don't know how she can even afford to work, and she works a 6 day week...

[nanabugg]

21. What is really mind-blowing is that they say these things in public!

Nothing like world-wide public display of ignorance.

[CTyankee]

22. sometimes they change their minds. I met a midwestern woman who is Norwegian by descent and

she had married a Norwegian man and lived in Norway during her pregnancy and the birth of their baby. She was pretty awestruck at the social services she and her baby received, in her home no less, after an uncomplicated birth. I told her that she should tell her midwestern friends what living under socialism was really like. She said "Oh, I do!"

And I have known others who had somehow learned about European socialism and they said they thought it was a "good idea" and we should have more of it here.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

8. Even in that decrepit pit of debt known as Italy

(sarcastically speaking), there are some things that I love: health care (usually one of the top in the world) is great. In my own city of Bologna, you can book appointments for regular tests online and you can have some basic lab tests done at the local pharmacy - no wait, no cost. I remember never having to wait more than a day or two to visit the doctor, even for routine exams.

I remember my doctor - who was the same one who attended my birth - coming to my own home in the middle of the night because I was so sick and my fever was running high. I was young (6 or 7 then), but home visits were/are nothing exceptional. My grandmother - who passed away recently at a ripe old age in her 90s - had a live-in assistant because she was partially blind. This allowed her to remain active (she was a passionate Wagner opera fan) and keep her German and English lessons going.

To this day, my dad - who lives in the US as I do - receives a hefty stipend (about 2200 Euros) for his disability (bladder cancer). This is the same amount he'd receive if he lived in Italy (it's already taxed so that's what he gets net - every month on the dot) - he has to provide proof of his condition every year, of course, and if he were to be in remission the payments would stop, but this is part of what the taxes he paid all the years he lived and worked in Italy got him.

There is one facet that is almost absent in the U.S. - and that is the belief that we all come together as members of the society and as a whole we help one another. It doesn't matter if I may never need help, but I still feel like I contribute to the betterment of society.

In the U.S., instead, it's a lot of 'I'll never need that, so why should I pay for someone else to have it?' - it's a very self-centered attitude, probably due to how this country came to be. There are a lot of selfish people who don't understand that everyone plays a part in this country - no man is an island, so to speak.

In my current city of Wilmington, NC, we are facing tremendous infrastructure issues - a sewer line just spilled gallons and gallons of waste in a creek, which is a major problem because we are so close to the ocean and our area is full of basins and marshes flowing to the ocean. Yet, people complain when the water/wastewater utility has had to raise rates to cover all these infrastructure issues that have been neglected for over 50 years (no joke). And the arguments are all based on selfish principles. It's sad, really.

I was reading commentary on new regulations proposed by the technocratic Italian government to increase revenue. One of them was to increase the cost of the most expensive medications (the ones that are brand and are very costly, which are not subsidized and that the consumer has to pay on her own) from the average of 167 Euros per year for a family of four to almost 200 Euros per year for a family of four.

Note that this is for a family of 4 (Four - quattro) - 167 Euros a year????? I bet most Americans would jump up and down to pay $200 a MONTH, much less a year.... and this is for the most expensive tier of medications - while the rest is even cheaper and some are even free.

[hifiguy]

11. A friend of mine moved to France nearly

a decade ago and became a French citizen. A few years back he had a minor cardiac event. Ambulance showed up with an M.D. in charge, he spent a few days in the hospital for tests and observation. He was sent home well, with a couple of prescriptions.

Total cost? 250 Euros.

Nuff said.

[kctim]

12. What do you do if you don't want health care insurance?

[Prophet 451]

13. Here (England), that's not an option

Because the NHS is funded out of general taxation, you're covered by it whether you like it or not. You're free to take or leave private insurance as you like though.

[kctim]

16. That lack of choice

is "why so many Americans seem to think a "European-style welfare state" is such a terrible thing."

While the US is slowly getting there, Americans have not yet gotten to the point where enough of us wish to give up the individualism principles that our nation was founded on. Freedom of choice is still a very big thing here and taking that away from them is going to take a little more time.

[Prophet 451]

18. Freedom to starve under a bridge...

...Freedom to die of some preventable illness.

[MichaelMcGuire]

28. I agree the guys arguments is paper thin

Last edited Tue Jan 31, 2012, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Its probably worth pointing out, the benefits to the economy from having no issues of assess. A healthy population is a productive one.

[kctim]

39. Freedom of choice

does come with responsibility.

[Prophet 451]

44. So...

...Americans would rather have the freedom to starve under a bridge than have a social safety net. That's fucking deranged.

[kctim]

46. No...

Some Americans, around half, would rather have the freedom to choose for themselves than to have government make that choice for them.
You have to remember that our nation was founded on individualism and a very limited government, so it takes time for people to be conditioned to government doing things for them. It gets especially hard when it concerns freedom of choice, right to bear arms and over taxation.

[Tsiyu]

60. They don't mind

government schools, roads, bridges, military, health inspectors and libraries, do they now?

How many "rugged individualists" in America do you know who pave their own roads, police their own streets, drive their own school buses, build their own libraries, inspect food processing plants on their own?

Not too many, you know it and I know it.

"Socialized medicine" is the same as "socialized interstates." It is NOT "socialism," in that the private sector is still privately owned, and few wish to change that.

But pooling our resources to provide healthcare to all just makes sense.

and in Europe, you are "free" to choose a better plan and pay more, but you can still get healthcare if you don't have a lot of $$$$

We'd rather be free to let one another die. That's not "freedom." That's lunacy. Anyone who says "but we wuz built on ruggid indivisualizm so we kin be free ta dah early" is really stretching the meaning of "freedom."

[csziggy]

86. Actually, yes they do. Haven't you noticed that schools and libraries are being closed?

Roads and bridges are not being maintained. Health inspectors are thought to be an "enslavement" of private enterprise as are any regulations to protect the health and safety of the general public.

What the same group have no problem with is the massive increase in the military and the militarization of the police forces across this country.

And it is insane to make those choices than making sure that our people are healthy, safe and educated.

[Tsiyu]

92. true about the closings

But I think most regular citizens a like the public libraries and roads and bridges. It's the greedy politicians who convince the regular citizen that they are a waste of money.

[Old and In the Way]

56. We don't have freedom of choice!

If we did, we could choose between private options and a public single payer. I've been self-employeed for 10 years and my only choice is private health insurance. For that privilege, I get to pay $1100.00/month, knowing every friggen' time we use the benefits we can expect to have the payout delayed or declined. Why? Because the person dealing with claims is incentivized not to approve claims. My wife has been reduced to tears on more than 1 occasion having to deal with our private health insurer. If I had the choice of paying that $1100.00/month to a private insurance company or the USG, guess which I'd choose in a heartbeat? Yep, the single payer option. Because I know that (1) claims would be processed (as long as it's not a fraudulent claim) and (2) it would be the most cost effective solution for this country. Allowing private insurance companies to be a non-valued added middle-man whose only contribution is to extract an extra 20% from the policy holder-victims for their profits is disgusting.

If we had the choice, I'd wager that overnight, 50% of the private insurance company policy holders would switch and those that remained would see their premium costs escalate. Why should I be forced to subsidize a private corporation for something as basic as healthcare when I know that a public single payer would be cheaper and better?

[CreekDog]

98. What about children?

should they have the "right" to go without medical care?

or do you just want the "right" to not give a ----------?

[mr blur]

32. But we (UK) can have private insurance if we want (or want to pay for) it -

we just don't have to and no-one is denied healthcare.

[kctim]

40. You don't have to because you have no choice

[mr blur]

42. What? This is a meaningless statement.

Are you telling us that the Americans think that the US has a better system because they can choose to die rather than take out medical insurance?

[kctim]

43. I am telling you

that right now, around half of Americans believe they should have the freedom of choice in deciding what health insurance, if any, they wish to purchase with their own money. A government program mandating health insurance or universal type health care takes away that choice.
So yes, many Americans would rather have freedom of choice than government health care.

[uppityperson]

72. What are you going on about? Rather than having basic insurance and freedom to get more

those "half of Americans" you continue to talk about want the "freedom" to have no insurance at all? What?

Maybe you have missed the poster from the UK talking about being able to buy private insurance, as I know is possible in other of those European countries.

How does having the ability to have minimal health insurance take away any "freedom"?

[laundry_queen]

106. What about the choice TO have government health care?

You are advocating taking OTHER people's choices away while promoting YOUR choice. That's not freedom of choice, that's authoritarianism. So much for freedom.

[HughBeaumont]

49. No matter how you try to spin this, it's seriously getting more comical with each statement.

If I get a major illness I don't get a six-digit anvil of debt, bankrupted and thrown out of my house. Maybe that's one reason their companies can afford to pay them the salaries they can - because they don't have to worry about providing something that, by every sense of the word and the way the rest of the industrialized world defines it, should be a human right (and how do American corporations, for all of their complaints about this subject, not see the disconnect?).

See, I don't know how the rest of America's liquid cash supply will carry them, but me . . . I couldn't AFFORD cancer, a spinal occlusion, major surgery or the aftermath of accident survival. I can't afford to gamble with a matter as precious as my health; charities, bake sales and fund-raisers wouldn't even begin to cover it.

Brits have far more choice than we do, in addition to having no bankruptcies due to medical issues. OH LAWD, FREE ME FROM SUCH TYRANNY!!!

[kctim]

50. There are only facts, no spin at all

And the simple fact is that Americans have not voted for candidates who will give them "free" government health care because they do not want to give up their freedom of choice. It is sad that so many believe infringing on individual rights is comical.

The argument against government health care isn't really about protection from debt and going bankrupt, so your opinionated first paragraph is moot.

Nobody can afford to gamble with their health, but in our country, about half of us still place individual rights ahead of things like that.

When Brits can choose for themselves, then they may have more choice than we do on this issue. Until then, they are living under government mandates, which is more accurately defined as tyranny.
The fact that you believe freedom of choice equals tyranny and that you mock choice so as not have to defend your opinion, speaks volumes on how weak your case is.

[HughBeaumont]

53. You know what this sounds like to me?

This sounds like you're about one or two sentences away from saying "WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S HEALTH CARE???"

You know what kinds of people say that a lot, don't you?

You're putting a "freedom of choice" wrapper on the dogshit package of economic Darwinism.

Yeah, keep asserting my "case" is weak. Meanwhile, more Americans will have the "choice" every day whether to be bankrupted by Humana, bankrupted by Cigna or taken to the cleaners by WellPoint, all for the crime of getting sick. 45,000 people EVERY YEAR. FACT. Gee, I guess instead of being covered by the government in a "we" society, I should enjoy the privilege of getting choked by exorbitant costs and financially sodomized by an insurance conglomerate in our great "ME" society. CHILD, PLEASE.

"The argument against government health care isn't really about protection from debt and going bankrupt, so your opinionated first paragraph is moot. " Opinionated . . . right, get back to me when Europe's, Britain's, Scandanavia's and Canada's medical bankruptcies exceed ours and then I'll think about taking you seriously.

Health IS a human right, every human DESERVES that right. If you don't believe in that, that is NOT my problem.

I mean, you don't want to live in a "we" society and think it's all about "you, you, you", that's fine. You thrive on that lil' old island of yours. But understand that selfishness is actually one of the greatest reasons to HAVE Universal Health Care . . . so it will be THERE when you need it the most. That's actually why Otto Von Bismarck first instituted the idea of multi-payer in Germany . . . so the workers would have little incentive to JOIN the Socialists.

Maybe one of the reasons Americans haven't voted for such candidates is that they haven't snapped out of their Reaganite "Soshulized Medicine" brainwashing on the subject since 1962.

[hifiguy]

54. You win the thread, Hugh.

The "arguments" you are responding to are pathetic in the extreme and all boil down to the same thing: "I'm not paying for what those undeserving assholes might get even if I don't have it myself and might get it. I'd rather die in the street than have some undeserving asshole get something for nothing." How laughable and sad.

[HughBeaumont]

57. Here's what's even sadder . . .

. . . how do these anti-universal health care trolls think private insurance works anyway? What, they think I get HC costs deducted and it goes in a "HughBeaumont's Special Health Care" account?

WE ARE paying for other people's health care; it's a concept called "pooling", like a mutual fund. The only difference is, your physician, Gyno, Obstetrician, whatever . . . AND your level of care is pre-determined by the insurance conglomerate and their risk analysts based on the over/under of the pool's less healthy/more healthy patients. A mutual fund actually offers more freedom than private insurance does. Did I mention the "death panels"?? THAT's what's Darwinian about the whole thing. There isn't anything "free" about "survival of the fittest".

And "Qualify" doesn't necessarily mean "can afford". That's why humans NEED basic care that they pay for in a pool without worry or thought.

[hifiguy]

59. Yep. And the bigger the pool

the lower the costs for everyone on a per capita basis.

Universal single payer could run, like Medicare, on a 3-4% overhead where the average for-profit vampire insurance company has 25-35% overhead - hey those $100 million compensation packages for the pigs at the top and those corporate jets have to be paid for by SOMEBODY, ya know. Even many doctors realize this - both doctors and patients are getting royally screwed by the middlemen in the current system that benefits only those who never treat a patient and do less than nothing to protect or preserve the health of the people.

These facts are impossible to ignore. And defending the "freedom" to die for want of medical treatment is not an argument I would care to make to Jefferson, Franklin, or either of the Roosevelts.

[Prophet 451]

62. Overhead

Overhead for the NHS is 6.8%. That's for unionised staff with pensions and benefits who get paid enough to afford a decent middle-class lifestyle.

[kctim]

89. "And defending the "freedom" to die for want of medical treatment is not an argument I would care to

to make to Jefferson, Franklin, or either of the Roosevelts"

But using government to force another individual to believe as you do, is an argument you would make?

[hifiguy]

91. In the name of a healthier, better society?

Hell yes, in a nanosecond. Do you know ANYTHING about FDR or TR?

Did TR "take away the freedom" of people to buy quack medicines and tainted groceries with the Pure Food and Drug Act? Did FDR "take away the freedom" of the elderly to slowly starve to death by pushing for Social Security?

That is, in essence, the argument you are making and, in the words of the great philosopher Bugs Bunny, it is to laugh. Those are "liberties" that a civilized society can do without.

[uppityperson]

102. "using government to force another individual to believe as you do"? WTF? Who is doing that?

Since public schools are funded with our tax dollars, by the government, are we forced to "believe as they do"? No. same with health insurance.

What gvt is trying to force any individual to "believe as you do"?

[laundry_queen]

105. Excellent post.

How do they think it works, indeed.

[Prophet 451]

61. Winner

*hands prize*

*which is good British ale*

[Starry Messenger]

66. You get a shiny new internet.

And a gold star.

[uppityperson]

73. Exactly. Good post, thank you.

[kctim]

88. So now you are guessing at what may be said in the future?

Do you not believe it is possible to support those who need help without violating the freedoms of others? Have you ever given it any thought at all or do you simply dismiss the things our founders believed in with negative labels when they do not agree with your opinion?

Going by recent elections, you are not going to get the universal health care you so desire for a while. Shouting at and labeling those who don't agree with you obviously is not working, so don't you think another plan may be in order? Say something like a voluntary government plan that could be used to show how effective it can be, which in turn would give the universal health care cause the votes it needs?

"Health IS a human right, every human DESERVES that right. If you don't believe in that, that is NOT my problem"

Ah, but if the majority do not agree with you and do not want to support you, it IS your problem.

"Maybe one of the reasons Americans haven't voted for such candidates is that they haven't snapped out of their Reaganite "Soshulized Medicine" brainwashing on the subject since 1962"

Or, more than likely, they have not decided to trade their freedom of choice for another government program yet? Maybe, just maybe, people who dare disagree with your personal views and beliefs are NOT as stupid as you want them to be?

[white_wolf]

107. Wow you sound like such a libertarain right now.

I"m fine with losing my freedom to allow other people to die because of a lack of healthcare.

[piratefish08]

48. freedom for 45,000 people to die uninsured each year. yay for rugged individualism. we're so smart.

many Americans with the means to MAKE a choice would rather have poor people die than government health care.



let's at least be honest about what is going on here. nobody at risk of dying is CHOOSING to be uninsured,

[kctim]

51. So we should take away the rights of ALL

in order to make a few feel good?

Sorry, but legislating by emotion does not work in a free society.

[Hissyspit]

63. A few?

Emotion?

WTF?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

65. You've either never worked, or you've never been laid off

This libertarian machismo goes straight out the window when you need some care. Talk like a freeper all you want, but you're not swaying me an inch.

[kctim]

76. I am not trying to "sway" you one bit

and I haven't mentioned where I stand on this issue. I simply asked a simple question that seems can only be answered by name-calling and weak attempts of derailing.

[Starry Messenger]

67. Or how about *you* move to Somalia, libertarian paradise

and the rest of us (way more than half) get the society we want to thrive in. And quit driving on our roads and using our post offices while you're at it.

[kctim]

77. Leave your country? Mr. West, is that you?

[Starry Messenger]

83. There's only one republican in this subthread

and it isn't me. The act isn't fooling anyone and never has.

[laundry_queen]

108. +1 nt

[HughBeaumont]

110. +200

I'm dumbfounded, myself, at how many are fooled or just don't care.

[uppityperson]

74. What "rights of ALL" are being taken away?

the ability to pay for their own health care rather than having insurance? That "right"?

hahahahahahahahahah

[Marrah_G]

52. Why would you not want health care?

What possible advantage is there to paying a company to decide what health care you are allowed, while they make a large profit by doing so.

[kctim]

78. It's not about 'not wanting health care'

it's about having the choice to have it or not and the plan you want.

[laundry_queen]

109. Right now people don't have the choice TO have it.

Because they can't afford it! So just because you have YOUR freedom of choice, doesn't mean OTHERS do. Why am I explaining this to you? You're being deliberately obtuse.

[kctim]

113. I have no idea why you are trying to explain that

The majority of people support some sort of safety-net for those who need aid. The problem arises when you try to control the lives of those who do not need aid through government mandates.

[Quantess]

115. The US government "mandates" that you pretty much have to buy insurance, or you're screwed.

And even then, a lot of services and prescriptions may be out of your budget, since the American health care system is so cost-inefficient.

It's just however you choose to look at it. Your options really do boil down to whichever country you live in, unless of course you are fairly wealthy in which case you always have more options than the rest of the world's population.

[laundry_queen]

117. Taxes are a government mandate that support those

safety-net programs, should we get rid of mandatory taxation? hmm?

[Mopar151]

111. This is disingenuous in the extreme

Because many (in fact, most) of those who choose not to pay for health insurance are counting on the charity of gov't funded hospitals who cannot turn emergency cases away. Instead, the cost of this "last resort" care is paid for by inflating the cost of healthcare for those of us who pay our medical bills through insurance, whether private or public, or out-of-pocket.
We pay more than enough in this country to have excellent healthcare for all. The reason that we "can't afford" good care is the amount that insurance companies and for-profit providers (and empire-building non-profits) skim off the top.

[kctim]

112. Not the least bit disingenuous

because cost has NOTHING to do with freedom of choice. Sure, insurance companies can price themselves right out of giving people a choice of plans, but they cannot force you to buy their plan.

For millions and millions of Americans, money does not trump rights, so using the 'but we already pay for it' line is not going to work with them.

[Mopar151]

114. Those "millions and millions" are already stiffing us with the bill!

The "freedom of choice" you are so concerned about seems to be about the choice of trying to skate out of paying the bill if something happens - their "choice" sticks us (those of us who "choose" to pay) with the bill. That's the fact of the matter - and I'm some friggin' tired of getting stuck with the bill!

[TheKentuckian]

116. The thing is you have a functionally false set of assumptions

1) Most people don't make any choice about health care, they take what their work offers them and will soon be required by law to do so. On the delivery end the plan decides not the consumer, they dictate which doctors you can see, what pharmacy will fill your prescription, they deem what is and isn't medically necessary not you or your doctor, they decide which medications you can be prescribed that they will cover.

There is no question that the individual market where choice actually does exist is broadly panned, in fact that is what gets most of the help in the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act. Only the healthy and very comfortable and the wealthy that actually have "choice" are not crying under the burden of their "freedom". The segment that supports this strange and seemingly absurd definition of "choice" is in the population that A) has none and B) makes little use of care because they are generally healthy. They are essentially equally happy with whatever their employers offer and subsidize (functionally) in lieu of wages.

Their "happiness" is a non-heart attack inducing deduction (or low or none at all, in some cases) and little need. Their "choice" a complete and utter hocum.

2) The tiny fraction of people that actually don't want health care always have that choice. Very few people get stuck in a Schivo situation, they'll usually let you die in a heartbeat unless it is some political boon for the "choice" advocates to whip up a bunch of fuckwits.


People want their middle man to be cheap, cover their problems, pay the fucking claims, and they don't have to be fighting them. That is all, if people think that those conditions are satisfied they don't give a damn who their carrier is.

People want to choose their doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and they want them and their medical professional to determine their treatment plan and single payer is how you get everybody "in network" and everybody "preferred" at which point you have user end freedom.

The concerns argued are essentially delusional save for the wealthy. I'll grant perception being a big chunk of reality but rather than reenforce it ask some easy questions about what choices people really want and you'll find that when contrasted with actual policies and guidelines as well as actual market function that what we have nor what we will have is anything resembling what actual choices people wish to have.

Your ass feels a lot free when you get sick visting your sister and are "free" to pay an extra 40% or maybe have no coverage at all (trading away freedom of movement to your network if you want coverage that you pay for). You are free to inject your child with medications that make your child's veins feel like they are on fire because "choice" changed their formulary. You have the option to suck it when your doctors practice is dropped.
Certainly, you have the responsibility to hear "that is not a covered benefit" or "that is not a covered code" and have the privilege of lossing your formally medically necessary treatment denied by your new carrier when your employer switches on you.

There is little choice for most.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

64. that's actually a bs line being sold by republicans

I want to have the freedom of choice to watch my uninsured child get sick and die. Yeah, right.

[kctim]

79. You need to venture out of CA

There are many moderate Dems who do not favor government health care and avoiding that by calling them all Republicans is NOT going to get you liberal type Reps you need to get it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

81. is 44 states on the checklist good enough for you?

Or do I need the all-important North Dakota checkbox completed before I've traveled this nation enough to satisfy your requirements?

[kctim]

85. While ND is a beautiful state

it won't do you any good if you don't take the time to actually meet and speak with moderate Democrats, now will it?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

87. I'll take that as a yes.

Thank you.

[CreekDog]

99. Concern trolling universal health care doesn't make you a "moderate"

and by European standards, it puts you in one of those fringe right wing parties.

even the conservative parties in most modern nations believe in universal health care.

the freedom to not have health care is laughable.

[uppityperson]

71. You are free to not use your insurance if you don't want to. Having the ability to use it is giving

up freedoms and a terrible thing? Huh.

[kctim]

80. No, their argument is

not having the freedom to choose if they want it, or what plan they want, is giving up freedoms.

[csziggy]

90. We don't get to pick and chose what government services are paid for by our tax money

Why should health care be any different?

I don't want MY taxes to go towards torture, Guantanamo, invasion of other sovereign countries, spying on American citizens, and many other programs that are paid for by my tax money.

Those things do not make my fellow citizens better educated or healthier and they do not make businesses in this country better able to compete with companies that do NOT have to pay for health insurance for their workers or do remedial training because our schools do not teach needed skills.

I also don't have the "freedom" to chose the health insurance I currently have. My husband works in order to get health insurance for the two of us. We used to have a business but could not get private health insurance for any price. So we closed our business and he went to work at a crappy job so we could have insurance until we're old enough for Medicare. His employer selects what company we get insurance from and what kind of policies we can chose from.

MOST Americans have not freedom to chose their health insurance. They just have been brainwashed to think that the private insurance they get from their employers is a free choice when it really is not.

[CreekDog]

100. too late. you used the public trough and you still do

you dont' get to say, now that you have your money, that you want off.

you're here, you have what you have, based in part on what others, some family, some friends, some of your hard work but ALSO the work and help of others whom you don't see, don't appreciate and don't recognize, but who were critical to you having the things you think you got all on your own.

you didn't.

so suck it up and stop acting like you can ignore all but your own contributions to what you have now and give back what was so graciously given to you.

[uppityperson]

103. Just. Don't. Use. It. Like you can chose to not use public schools or roads.

You don't get to pick and chose which gvt services are paid for with your tax dollars. I'd rather not fund the military as much as it is. Since I don't have a choice in, is that "giving up freedoms"?

Do you have insurance through your work? Do you get to pick and chose which company you want, which plan you want, or are you, like most of us, stuck with what your employer offers? Oh, the freedoms you give up by working!

[laundry_queen]

104. Seriously?

That's viewed as 'taking away a choice'?

But it's okay to NOT have the choice to see your doctor because he's suddenly 'not in your network'. Sorry, you have to see the doctor IN your insurance's network. Isn't that taking away 'choice'? Here in Canada I can see any doctor I want, from coast to coast, and it will be covered. Period.

It's okay to have the 'choice' to seek medical care that very well may put you into bankruptcy?

It's okay to have the 'choice' to have 1/3 of your take home pay go towards insurance premiums (I don't pay premiums and my taxes are not high at all, especially because I'm low income - my kids get supplemental coverage as well because of that low-income).

It's okay to have the 'choice' to be gouged by pharmaceutical companies.

It's okay that there's NO choice to choose a public option...

It's okay to choose to have OTHER people die.

Nope, I'll never understand those 'individualist principles' your nation was founded on - it WILL be the death of this planet.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. to me this is like saying, i won't drive on highways so i won't pay taxes

this has nothing to do with choice and a lot to do with greed. we worship greed here as though its a moral value.

[CreekDog]

101. and it's too late...that poster already took from the system

did he wake up on his 27th birthday or something, with a college education, good job and the things he needs?

or did a lot of people around him help make sure he had what he needed to help him get where he is today?

did a lot of people in society make sure that children (which included him) got the kind of things he had, things without which, it can be argued, he couldn't have done without and still have all that he has today.

the idea that one can be a loner responsible for him/herself is just a lie that camouflages hypocrisy.

one takes, takes, takes, and when they have enough that they don't think they are taking anymore, they decide not to repay what was given them before --they decide not to participate in the society that gave to them.

it's almost as bad as stealing. if that poster refuses to give back while still banking on the skills and talents afforded to him through the work of others --he's just a taker, plain and simple. and an ungrateful one at that.

[Londoncalling]

41. You pay because you may one day need emergency treatment

If you get into a road traffic accident you will be taken to an NHS Accident and Emergency department where they will have the equipment to save your life and you will not get a bill for it. Should you wish to recover in private hospital that can be accomadated but an ambulance will take you to an NHS hospital first.
The other thing about the NHS is birth control is free of charge for women, so nobody has to worry about that on their insurance. It is not a political issue at all because free birth control costs less than benefits. The emergency Morning After Pill is free from any pharmacist too. If you are unemployed and on what we call Jobseekers Allowance you do not pay for any prescription. Also children, the elderly get free prescriptions.
Jobseekers Allowance is money paid into our bank accounts there are no restrictions on what we can use it for, unlike food stamps.

[HughBeaumont]

55. Oh, don't tell Robinson Crusoe that!!!

ALL Americans, rather than be FORCED to have OPPRESSIVE Gubmint Health Care, should be HAPPY and ECSTATIC to take the Big White Fist of Humana and WellPoint! FREEEDDDDOMM!!!

[MichaelMcGuire]

82. To be fair

In the US you still get treated in the accident and emergency department regardless
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)

However needless to say I'd rather have the NHS anyday

[CreekDog]

68. in England, you don't have to have health insurance

oh you have to pay the taxes that help provide health care to yourself and others.

but there's no required insurance there.

[2ndAmForComputers]

93. What if you don't want to be defended by armed forces?

Tough luck bub, you still gotta pay taxes for them.

Your argument is obvious libertarianism. I mean this as most definitely NOT a compliment.

[JCMach1]

14. How about just a working healthcare system and affordable insurance

No welfare state here, but everything is paid for by our affordable private sector insurance.

Why and how? Tight regulation and price controls on the healthcare industry.

[Prophet 451]

17. That works too n/t

[meow2u3]

27. If we're going to have affordable private insurance, it'll have to be non-profit coops

Otherwise, I'm for the single payer, or at least the public option.

Private health care doesn't work unless profits for top executives are curtailed and profits for the company are eliminated.

[LeftishBrit]

15. +1000

Unfortunately, there is an attitude by right-wing Americans and some right-wing Europaeans that people *should* have to live in fear of destitution; that otherwise they won't work, won't become productive, will become addicted to 'dependency', will be immoral, will become uppity and not respect their 'betters' (i.e. those with more money), etc.

When we actually have enough jobs to go round, then we can start worrying about those who 'choose welfare over work'. The main reason for people living on the dole is large-scale unemployment, not some form of moral corruption.

Our Right are bad enough; but the Republicans who condemn 'Europaean welfare states' out-of-hand are something worse.

[Prophet 451]

35. Such as the ConDems

I'm trying to avoid going off on a rant about the ConDem's destruction of the welfare state but that Dickensian attitude of the "undeserving poor" is very much evident i8n their views.

[CreekDog]

69. How can people learn to depend on Jesus if bad stuff can't happen to them?

Silly.

Don't you understand that for people to understand what a gracious god Evangelical Christians have, that people need to be told by his followers that they're all on their own.

[Romulox]

19. There is currently a financial crisis in Europe. Surely this bears on the discussion. nt

[sibelian]

20. Tell us how, Romulox.

[Romulox]

25. Several Europeans governments are debating "austerity" measures--e.g.

raising retirement age. In particular, the Greek government is currently embroiled in a default crisis.

If this is news...

[jwirr]

29. This austerity debate is American made as a part of disaster capital and Milton Friedman's trickle

down economics. Unfortunately the EU adopted the theories that brought us down and will bring them down if they do not switch directions. I has nothing to do with their healtcare and social programs.

[abowsh]

94. That wasn't the reason for it, that just made it happen sooner.

Austerity discussions for the PIGS were happening back in the mid-2000s. Everyone knew that some changes would have to be made, but they didn't think they would be needed so soon. Many governments ignored how intertwined their debt had become between other European nations, which caused a bit of a snowball effect.

I only know a few Germans, but I often hear a bit of right-wing rhetoric from them when they discuss the debt situation. Many view southern Europe as filled with lazy bums who have been benefiting from northern Europe's (and especially Germany's) hard work. Is this true? Not really. But they have a reason to be upset. The governments of Italy and Greece have tried to pretend there wasn't an issue in order to keep their power in government. Silvio had done this masterfully in Italy for years in regards to their debt.

Their healthcare and social programs did have quite a bit to do with this, but again, that's really only because politicians had tried to delay the necessary changes for years. Their systems are not broken, but they do need to be tweeked. Ignoring the needed changes for years, combined with a global economic crisis, is what put the PIGS in this situation.

[Prophet 451]

36. Doesn't really figure into it

I'll be the first to confess that I'm no economics whizz but the austerity measures coming down in parts of Europe (including my own UK) owe a lot to Friedmanite delusions about economics, not to our health and social care systems.

[Romulox]

38. Um, no. It's much more serious than that. Check the world news. nt

[Prophet 451]

45. I do, often

The austerity measures coming down are largely because conservative governments have refused to learn from Keynes in favour of pushing Friedmanite delusions. And our healthcare and social safety nets have little to do with causing the problems.

[CreekDog]

70. are ANY of these nations considering eliminating universal health care?

no. but you knew that.

you just wanted to make it sound like this is all going away (even though national systems are far cheaper than what we do here in the USA).

[Romulox]

84. I don't know wtf you are talking about; I support Single Payer Healthcare here in the US.

I can't pretend that there isn't a severe "austerity"/debt crisis in Europe simply because it fits somebody's agenda, however.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. isn't there a financial crisis here?

[Romulox]

26. Not to the same degree. nt

[Quantess]

31. Pretty sure there's one in the USA as well.

[Quantess]

30. Most countries' health care services are not "free"

Most countries have fees to see the doctor. Of course they are small fees, to Americans' estimations.

[mr blur]

33. No fees to see a doctor in the NHS (nt)

[Quantess]

34. that's the UK?

Oh yes, I saw that in Sicko.
Sweden charges a little money. But it's still single payer, you're just reimbursing the government health care system.

[Prophet 451]

37. Different nations do it slightly differently

The UK doesn't charge to see the doctor, there's just that small charge for getting a prescription filled. I'll take your word for it that Sweden levies a small charge for doctor visits (and I'd imagine that has the same purpose as the prescription charge, to stop you bugging your doctor with trivial stuff). Each European nation does healthcare slightly differently but the general principle remains the same throughout.

[MichaelMcGuire]

58. Prescriptions are free in Scotland (nt)

[ellisonz]

47. Thems Guvmint DEATH PANELS!!!

[CreekDog]

75. I love Europe, especially for this reason

I consider it much more humane and civilized, for this reason alone (though there are others).

You see far less poverty there and Europe provides its people far more of the basics than we do:

higher unemployment and welfare benefits
universal health care
lower cost and/or free public education
far better public transportation than all but a few American cities

And Europe treats their consumers better too. You can't buy a "locked" cellphone there. The taxes are included in the prices, so you don't have to guess what things will actually cost you to purchase.

[Cleita]

95. And yet England is the country that has fewer social safety nets

than other European countries or even our neighbors to the north Canada. Also, It makes me wonder if all the pro-Israel wingnuts in this country would be so pro if they knew that Israel has universal health care for everyone, even if they are Palestinian or another minority.

[Prophet 451]

96. Yep, we do

If I gave the impression that England was in any way perfect, I profusely apologise. There's an awful lot of areas where this country could be greatly improved and I could easily write a list of the ways England sucks when compared to mainland Europe.

[Cleita]

97. I'm not criticizing. Sorry if it came across like that.

My remark meant that with a little effort we in America could have basic human rights social nets like you do, but we can't seem to even pull that off.