The Tea Party

[Sinophile]

Would anyone be able to compare and contrast the NHS and Medicare? I honestly don't know the difference between "socialist" Universal healthcare, and medicare, other than it'll supposedly cost 1.2 trillion dollars per year, about two and a half times medicare, yet require doctors to work more hours for less money.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/ed/Medicare.jpg

 

 

 

My mother stills lives in London and when ill she travels to Paris rather than deal with the NHS, thank god her French husband has private health care.

If I am not mistaken, France also has universal healthcare, although I do not know how it compares to any other country.

 

I live near Philadelphia which has the highest level of medical expertise in the country, so I might be spoiled, not cheep but extremely good. Seven out of ten doctors nationwide train here and the largest concentration of medical schools in the US. But this is a digression from the Tea Party..mea culpa.

As Glenn Beck pointed out in this

Many well-to-do Canadians, including the prime Minister, come to the U.S. to receive healthcare. The U.S. may have higher quality healthcare, but what good does it do for those who cannot afford it? IMHO, the ideal health plan for a nation would insure everyone at a reasonable cost. As for the tea party, I somehow seriously doubt that any of their members would be ripping up their social security checks, or not using medicare.

 

Surely, though, there is something seriously weird about a man who has been in office for only two years and who has done beggar all getting a Nobel Peace Prize?

He has also done beggar to become president. He has never been in the military, and served only one term in the senate. I would speculate the main reason he got elected was simply because he wasn't George Bush. Jimmy Carter did not get a peace prize until well after he left office. Regardless of whether or not his popularity is deserved, there are others who would resent him for it. Anyway, I think I've gotten a little too involved in what should've been an informative topic. So I am going to pose a another question to those who are still following along:If McCain had been elected president, would the tea party still exist?

[Surenas]

I’m really happy to be a European in the health issue, cos up to a certain extent we’ve indeed the supremacy of a concrete "individual minimal security” over the chimera of a "maximal national security". The shift in the national budget from military to health has btw turned out to be a zero sum game, inasmuch as we share the remaining costs of the former with our European neighbours. Our Queen - she may live long! - who is one of the richest persons in the world, has always favoured such a social model, a workable and successful one. Now, to mismatch social behaviour of a society with socialism is pure facile political agitation directed to fearful people with a socialism phobia. Consequently we understand the US debate as “Socialism paranoia vs. Obama reformism”, apparently supported if not remote-controlled by the Republicans. Whatever the outcome may be – I hope you get a good job for the rest of your life if you aren’t yet rich, cos backward feelings alone don’t aid your family.

 

End and out.

 

Take your protein pills, boys

http://www.abload.de/img/anne9hol.gif

[JimboUK]

My mother stills lives in London and when ill she travels to Paris rather than deal with the NHS, thank god her French husband has private health care. Several years ago she had an emergency while I was there and had to be rushed to a hospital in Chelsea, I was appalled at the service level. No offense to my British friends but I can get better veterinary care for my setter over here and more promptly too. I wouldn't wish the NHS on my worst enemy and certainly don't want it to become the standard for the US. I live near Philadelphia which has the highest level of medical expertise in the country, so I might be spoiled, not cheep but extremely good. Seven out of ten doctors nationwide train here and the largest concentration of medical schools in the US. But this is a digression from the Tea Party..mea culpa.

 

Indeed our cats not only get seen quicker but also get far better treatment than people do on the NHS. It's not a lack of money that's the problem, it where the money is spent. At one point under the last government the NHS was hiring more managers than nurses, money was being spent on new shiny buildings while people had to wait ages for treatment because there wasn't enough equipment and staff qualified to operate it. They didn't train enough people so had to import people from third world countries who barely spoke English. Political targets became a problem as well, while fashionable diseases like cancer and HIV got more spending, cuts were made in unfashionable areas like mental health to pay for it. Treatment has become dictated not by clinical need but by targets, the new government are trying to address these problems but they are so ingrained it'll take a small miracle to turn it into something to be proud of. The U.S would do well to look at the NHS and see how it shouldn't be done.

 

I’m really happy to be a European in the health issue, cos up to a certain extent we’ve indeed the supremacy of a concrete "individual minimal security” over the chimera of a "maximal national security". The shift in the national budget from military to health has btw turned out to be a zero sum game, inasmuch as we share the remaining costs of the former with our European neighbours. Our Queen - she may live long! - who is one of the richest persons in the world, has always favoured such a social model, a workable and successful one. Now, to mismatch social behaviour of a society with socialism is pure facile political agitation directed to fearful people with a socialism phobia. Consequently we understand the US debate as “Socialism paranoia vs. Obama reformism”, apparently supported if not remote-controlled by the Republicans. Whatever the outcome may be for you – I hope you get a good job for the rest of your life if you aren’t yet rich, cos backward feelings alone don’t aid your family.

 

End and out.

 

Take your protein pills, boys

http://www.abload.de/img/anne9hol.gif

 

A lot of smaller European states have handed the defence of their countries over to the likes of the US, UK and France, if they had to defend themselves they'd be a lot less for healthcare and generous welfare provision.

[Surenas]

A lot of smaller European states have handed the defence of their countries over to the likes of the US, UK and France, if they had to defend themselves they'd be a lot less for healthcare and generous welfare provision.

Second helping.

Defend themselves against what? Terrorism? Already heard of our co-op European defense system? Guess not, at least not fully understood as the obsolete nuclear reference to the US, UK and France, missing e.g. a not so small Germany, clearly shows. Living in the atomic past of the Cold War is not what we are doing right now. For if you do you aren't to be taken seriously. Any revivification of WW-II as platform for future models is even more worse, it''d be little short of a medical problem, just to close the health circle.

 

 

Take your protein pills, boys

http://www.abload.de/img/anne9hol.gif

[JimboUK]

[

A lot of smaller European states have handed the defence of their countries over to the likes of the US, UK and France, if they had to defend themselves they'd be a lot less for healthcare and generous welfare provision.

Second helping.

Defend against what? The chimera of a worldwide War on Terror? Already heard of our co-op European defense system? Guess not, at least not fully understood as the obsolete nuclear reference to the US, UK and France, missing Germany, clearly shows. Living in the atomic past of the Cold War is not what we are doing right now. If you do you aren't to be taken seriously.

 

 

Take your protein pills, boys

http://www.abload.de/img/anne9hol.gif

 

People here are not the slightest bit interested in a European defence co-op. We know who'll end up contributing the most, the UK and France, the only Western European countries capable of defending themselves. Germany could do a lot more, WW2 ended 65 years ago, it's about time they moved on and pulled their weight. As for "defend against what?" that is very short sighted, things can change very quickly and new threats can emerge from anywhere. You need to be able to defend not only your nation but it's interests elsewhere. Why do you think no South American countries have made a move for the oil around the Falklands?

[Surenas]

 

People here are not the slightest bit interested in a European defence co-op.

Last helping.

Who do you think you are? The self-appointed representative of the Nexus? That'd be as farfetched as many of the "information", i.e. not even worth a penny.

Performing my own grandma still happily clung in Holland of 1944 is not part of my repertoire, fortunately. And it oughtn't be yours either. The US will find a solution for themselves in the matter of health care. May God help them.

:thumbsup:

 

tot ziens,

better take your protein pills, boys

http://www.abload.de/img/anne9hol.gif

[grannywils]

I am oh so hesitant to get into this one, but just want to say a little bit. Jim_UK, I am really greatful for what you have said about healthcare around the world and for your words of warning to us in the U.S. with respect to political involvement in how it is managed. And I hope we can take heed.

Surenas, as usual, when it comes to your words, I have a little difficulty sometimes understanding entirely. But this time I think I do get the gist of what you are trying to say, and I am pretty much in agreement I think. If I understand you, you are asking that we not confuse Socialism with social policy, and by the same token you are also saying "Socialism works just fine, thank you very much". After that, if I understand correctly Jim implied that the Netherlands cannot defend itself without the help of certain other European nations and should "put up or shut up" (my words, not his). He left out Germany as one of those nations because he doesn't believe they have been holding their own. Surenas, resented that and wanted to know what they needed defending from, and said so.

 

If I got that right, I have to say that it seemed a little harsh on Jim's part to jump in and say in essence, "well you couldn't have your wonderful socialized medicine if we weren't around to protect you". Now I have probably totally misinterpreted all of that, and please correct me if I have, but I did get a little lost there.

[ginnyfizz]

But, Grannywils, actually jim_uk is right, no-one here in the UK is the slightest bit interested in a European defence co-op. And it is usually the case in any so called European military venture that the UK and France end up doing the most. After all when we have not been bashing the you know what out of each other, the two countries have ended up in two World Wars precisely because we have leaped to the defence of other countries. He has a right to his opinion, and should not be told he doesn't.

[grannywils]

Ginnyfizz: You're absolutely right, Jim_UK does have a right to his opinion. I most assuredly was not trying to say that he didn't. But I almost got the feeling that he was trying to tell Surenas that she didn't have a right to her opinion, simply on the basis of what you have just said. That is, that your nation and France are the more powerful nations in Europe, and you are the ones who tend to rush to the defense of others during conflicts. As I said in my post, I may have misunderstood, but I almost had the impression that he meant that since you guys (and we) have the power and are willing to go to the defense of the less powerful, he might have been trying to say that they didn't have a right to voice an opinion. I think I am obviously mistaken in his intent, and if so I apologize; but can you see how it might possibly have been misconstrued that way?

[ginnyfizz]

I can see that, for sure.