An American NHS

[SeanMacGabhann]

THAT'S the kind of response I was after!

[Keef]

But what do you make of the over the top condemnations from the US right? I mean... Evil? Orwellian?

Agreed Piers on the reasons, but why so large a believing audience

There is truth in what you say, but it still doesn't explain why ordinary citizens have taken to standing outside Obama's meetings with loaded guns, suggesting it's time for some blood to flow.

You did see the word "American" in your own subject line didn't you?

THAT'S the kind of response I was after!

That just reminded me of a sociology lecturer (see The History Man), knowing exactly what he wants said, but just nudging the students towards his conclusion. Why didn't you just say so! ;-)

[Smiler]

Looking at OECD data, health spending relative GDP is far, far higher in America than anywhere else in the world. Our system is relatively cheap, even with the additional funding by the current government.

[Mick Mac]

Sean

You clearly agree with your friend MP.

I'm not sure you can associate or even disassociate political and religious issues.

I think this remains primarily a cost issue for most US people - but religion is being taken into consideration as a secondary issue.

[Keef]

I agree with Mick, I don't see what religion really has to do with it. It's more that people think they'd be working to pay for lazy people. The American Dream is an individual thing, there isn't much room for helping your fellow man, unless he can put in a word for you somewhere.

[mockney piers]

I think you're missing my point slightly MM.

Of course there is a huge debate going o. About the costs, practicities and needs of universal health care in the US. But it's not a debate that exactly inflames passions is it. On fact that's the ground of most British politics hence why so many find it yard to engage with it.

As I saw it the OP was asking why such hysteria on an essentially dull issue, that's what I was attempting to address, it was not intended to be an explanation that excludesthe existence of a much larger and more sensible debate about costs and viabilities.

There is a sense in the US that America has hit a cross roads, that something isn't working anymore, post 9/11 and Iraq but more importantly post Katrina and another Wall St crash.

Some conclude that the neoliberal experiment has failed others see it as the death throes of the new deal. That is the battle that is being fought.

[mockney piers]

I'm not sure who's asserting that it is a religious issue. But the religious right are a huge force in the opposition to Obama. As MM states you can't disassociate them because they're intertwined for so many.

Again we're discussing the hysteria. Again for the majority it's a red herring but they're not the ones hefting their guns are they?

[Keef]

Of course religous groups are a major part of US politics, but I just think this comes down to individuals. Imagine the uproar in this country if we were in the same situation, it would be the same as the "They're taking our jobs / houses / women" arguements we constantly hear.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Not sure if I follow your logic Keef - "Imagine the uproar in this country if we were in the same situation, " - the same situation as what? Introducing a system which benefits teh majority, especially the less well off?

I had an idea it wouldn't be long before the Tories piled in - and while they haven't en mass, Daniel Hannan's comments have kicked up a storm I see

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100006434/health-care-david-cameron-chooses-barack-obama-over-daniel-hannan/

I especially like the comments from the first poster

"From painful personal experience I can assure Mr Cameron (who without doubt goes private) that the NHS is a defunct moribound institution whose only function is to keep the legions of Browns administrators and QUANGoes in lucrative and useless employment.

"

"only function"???? - I mean how nuts is this guy - apparantly the NHS is no use to anyone? As has been said already, there is an argument to be had about efficiencies, costs, etc etc but nonsense like this shouldn't be given access to power

I can't wait to see new Labour gone but the thought of the Tories and their followers taking power - yikes..

My hat is off to Obama for taking this mob on -

[mockney piers]

All change engenders fear, and the birth if the NHS here took quite a bit of strong arming frankly, noone has found the perfect model for health care provision.

It just seems weird to me that "lower health insurance premiums" is a vote winner and "universal health care" is so incredibly controversial.

It seems a no-brained to me to take health provision out of the hands of the insurance industry. But as I said it snt really about that, it is about less vs more government essentially.

[louisiana]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bless you my NHS-representin' massive

>

> What you say is all valid and TRUE

>

> However I'm as interested in the breeding grounds

> for such flagrant nonsense - this remember, from

> the same country which a poll showed 28% of

> Republicans believe Obama was not born in America

> and therefore has no right to be President

>

> It's the same thinking that gives the word

> "liberal" it's value as an insult

>

Sean

It is also the land of televangelists and "truthiness".

> How mankind ever hopes to evolve when something as

> basic as can see such a popular president take so

> much flak I have no idea?

[louisiana]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But if the NHS in the UK could be created on the

> back of a financially crippling war, surely it can

> be done in the US?

>

> Noone is denying it will cost money, but given the

> trillions thrown at the "wealth creators", not to

> mention the various wars on the go, we know that

> money exists

>

> And if, as is forecast, many Americans will lose

> their jobs in the coming years, having a

> free-at-source medical resource would be money

> well spent for them surely?

You are quite right Sean. It's not a choice between public and private expenditure on health: at the end of the day, the country will have to afford caring for its sick, even as the bill rises with an ageing population. The choice is: do we - socially through government - spend on wars or health? Or more generally, what are our priorities as a society?

The cost of healthcare per capita in the USA is high. Can they really afford to pay so much money for such little (in terms of coverage) healthcare, with 40 million not cared for?

Edited to insert three missing words that clarify sense.

[Mick Mac]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think you're missing my point slightly MM.

I think I was missing the overall point Sean appears to have been getting at originally - That there is more to this than healthcare. But it would be a great pity if this were true and there were "sinister" moves to use this debate to destabilise Obama generally.

I mentioned religion because one of your earlier posts referred to the muslim demographic timebomb, which suggested to me that there was opposition to Obama on religious grounds.

Having heard what you have said though I do maintain this is a politacl debate - if in the midst of the biggest recession since the great depression you tell people that they have voted in a party of tax and spend and that they are going to be exposed to a significant additional tax burden then thats going to make them angry.

People like socialist policies until someoene tells tham how much its all going to cost.

[louisiana]

I feel there is a relationship to certain churches here, though perhaps not religion per se.

There's a degree of overlap between Republicanism and churches following the prosperity gospel. The prosperity gospel is very much about the individual, and individual wealth is taken as proof that you are being looked upon kindly by god. The logic seems to be (?) that anything that reduces your assets (such as taxes) is affecting your status in the eyes of god. (Unless it's a tithe to the church concerned, which is considered an investment for future prosperity.)

The word 'social' seems to be a dirty word in the US, more generally. (I suspect they are equating 'social' and 'national socialism'. Such poverty of thought?)

In mainland Europe, the social is encouraged. 'Solidarity' in life is something to be encouraged, and often mentioned positively in newspaper headlines.

In the UK, we seem to take a middle course/have more mixed feelings. Of course the NHS (and other widespread social benefits) came out of a very particular historical situation: the second world war, returning soldiers and all that. If we didn't have it, would it be introduced today?

[Mick Mac]

No, it probably wouldn't.

That was an interesting post Louisiana - nice to read something informative and interesting.

[mockney piers]

Ah I see. Sorry I was unintentionally conflating a couple of issues with that point. Two seperate things.

1 there were many who were happy to use smear tactics against Obama of which asserting that he's Muslim was one.

2 There is an assertion that European social democracy has failed and is corrupt and weak and there is a weird obsession with this idea of the demographic time bomb. It's all misinformation and half-truths but it's commonly accepted by many that, say France and the UK are n years (usually somewhere between 10 and 20) away from being Sharia caliphates, I kid you not.

It's a suprisingly commonly held belief, indeed it's a bestselling book, check amazon. I know I've engaged in 'debate' with these people on other fora.

[mockney piers]

No need to maintain it's a political debate, it's what I've been saying all along.

"nice to read something informative and interesting."

fine....*gives up and flounces*

[Keef]

Sean, when I said the same situation, I meant exactly the same as in America. Of course it would benefit loads of people, and please don't suggest that I'd be in anyway against it. My point was, that it would meet huge opposition from those who had the good health plans, and didn't see why they should help fund anyone else. How was I unclear about that? Look at the recent theads on housing, and tell me we wouldn't have people kicking off.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Ah I see

But by huge opposition, you wouldn't have the deputy leader of the opposition claiming it was Evil and Orwellian surely?

I absolutely agree with your point, but there is a tone to the opposition in the US which is unnerving

[Mick Mac]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No need to maintain it's a political debate, it's

> what I've been saying all along.

> "nice to read something informative and

> interesting."

> fine....*gives up and flounces*

Sorry MP - I also found the whole thread interesting - your posts especially having read tham agin to catch up properly - It was just that the second paragraph of Louisiana's post was something I did not know, something completley new to me.

"I maintain its a political debate" - I meant by this that I don't agree necessarily with the suggestion that this health issue is a political football being used to destabilise Obama. I can see having reread some posts that there is general agreement that its a right v left issue (with religious groups taking predictable stances).

You did say at one point that its not about health at all - I think it is about health and the cost implications of it, which have focused peoples minds on the nature of the government they have voted in and where it might lead them. Which I can see is what you suggested earlier, but the health issue was the catalyst.

Sorry to caused you such exasperation ! ::o

[mockney piers]

Ha ha, sorry, Feeling a bit weird today in general, I think I really need that holiday.

I think we are actually all mostly in agreement. Yes I overdid it saying it's not about healthcare. Of course it is, was just making the point that it's the focus in a wider debate about the movement of American politics, that there being the perception on both sides that there's a great deal more at stake than universal healthcare (or not) will inflame emotions.

Here the debate has been more or less static since the Major era, with political debate being down to mechanism of fine tuning and levels of commitment to spending. Much less exciting ;)

[Mick Mac]

I think MP/Sean this has been a really good thread. I have not read any of the press coverage, so its been informative. Its a good topic and it will be interesting to see how it develops.

[SeanMacGabhann]

and it has pulled in more than the 3 usual Drawing Room inhabitants! Huzzah!

[Keef]

Sean, surely then the problem is simply that in America you are Democrat or Republican, right or left. That means that these 2 groups have to cater for everyone, so unfortunately, you get the opposition supporting this kind of nonsense. If it were here, the main opposition would for the most part, oppose it, leaving the loons of the far right parties to get stuck in.

[louisiana]

Mick Mac, I should point out that first part of para 2 is factual as I have seen it reported, whereas the end of that para is my speculation of the possible logic at work that might justify such a position (opposing governments doing stuff for all citizens).

Curiously, the 'prosperity gospel' churches themselves are not seen as part of this 'socialist evil' by advocates: but they are social institutions nevertheless. A position of internal contradictions, no?

No doubt there are other factors at play: considering the vast sums at stake, the US private healthcare industries are no doubt lobbying like billy-o to get their point across with senators, congress-persons, state governors etc. And the US lobby machine is far and beyond anything we might face in this country.

Edited once to correct singular to plural.