Aliens in the ER

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Lots of hippie-socialist types use the image of Che, because they think he represents freedom of oppression, and that he fought for the working class.

What they don't realize is that he was a murdering thug, criminal, and a violent revolutionary.

If that's how Ibid wants to "change" society, count me out.

Lots of patriotic-budlightdrinking-repbulican types always get upset when they see images of Che being protrayed in pop-art images because they think every communist is satanic, kitten-choking murderer.

Although I don't agree with the way Che is worshipped among the so-called hipsters (they can go to hell), Che did what he thought was best for the working class. His contribution or even intention is not black-and-white, you know... not like Hilter's.

Hell, give me one med student in US today who would give up everything and go fight a war for something he believes in....... hell, you are lucky to find a med student who would choose a specialty not based on lifestyle and money.
 
Lots of patriotic-budlightdrinking-repbulican types always get upset when they see images of Che being protrayed in pop-art images because they think every communist is satanic, kitten-choking murderer.

Although I don't agree with the way Che is worshipped among the so-called hipsters (they can go to hell), Che did what he thought was best for the working class. His contribution or even intention is not black-and-white, you know... not like Hilter's.

Hell, give me one med student in US today who would give up everything and go fight a war for something he believes in....... hell, you are lucky to find a med student who would choose a specialty not based on lifestyle and money.

The ends justify the means. Murdering people, so long as it "helps" the working class is okay.
 
The ends justify the means. Murdering people, so long as it "helps" the working class is okay.

I just find it funny that a lot of old school Americans are this black and white.
By your logic, President Clinton is just a big old pervert who stuck a cigar up his secretary's vagina. Oh oh what about Nixon? Hell yeee, we can forget all the other things these people have done for our countries and the world.

I'm definitely not trying to justify Che's killing/execution of his war prisoners. That was wrong but there were things he did that were admirable. (ie. leaving medical school and starting a revolution after his journey around SA witnessing the social injustice in the countries). Hell, half of the people at my school went into EM just because it pays well and has good hours. If only these students would follow their so-called dreams and goals described in their AMCAS statements 🙄)
By the way, even Panetta issued an order to kill bin Laden. Would you call that murder? I believe that Panetta did what he thought was necessary to protect our country.
 
I just find it funny that a lot of old school Americans are this black and white.
By your logic, President Clinton is just a big old pervert who stuck a cigar up his secretary's vagina. Oh oh what about Nixon? Hell yeee, we can forget all the other things these people have done for our countries and the world.

I'm definitely not trying to justify Che's killing/execution of his war prisoners. That was wrong but there were things he did that were admirable. (ie. leaving medical school and starting a revolution after his journey around SA witnessing the social injustice in the countries). Hell, half of the people at my school went into EM just because it pays well and has good hours. If only these students would follow their so-called dreams and goals described in their AMCAS statements 🙄)
By the way, even Panetta issued an order to kill bin Laden. Would you call that murder? I believe that Panetta did what he thought was necessary to protect our country.

I'm not trying to justify anyone's behavior, just pointing out that the hippie granola types (who typically are non-violent and protest against guns) wear Che T-shirts and paint him as some sort of Robin Hood.
 
Socialised Health care has not led to shortages in the UK
.

I disagree. It has lead to rationing, and doctor shortages that were pretty critical at one point, only solved by recruiting foreign medical graduates. US citizens wouldn't tolerate this.

In the US with a free market system upwards of 25 percent have no coverage. What is that if not a shortfall??

We still take care of the poor in the US, and always have. Lack of healthcare insurance is not lack of healthcare access.

Which system is giving its population the best deal? The one that costs $1800 per head. The one that covers the whole population and the one that delivers the longer life expectancy.

I think that longer life expectancy used as the sole measuring tool is a gross oversimplification. This isn't the only thing we should take into account.

As for the money comparison, I thought that the following quote by Kevin Williams was insightful:

It is true,unquestionably, that the United States spends more as a share of its economy on healthcare than do most other countries. Why is that inherently problematic? The United States spends more on lots of goods and services than do other countries, and spends a lot less on some, too. Relatively speaking, the United States spends much more of its collective income on information technology, and much less on food, than do Haiti, Rwanda, or the alleged economic powerhouse that is the People's Republic of China for that matter.

Does that mean the Haitians and the Rwandans are getting a much better deal on their laptops and Internet routers than we are? Does it mean that Chinese peasants are eating better? Probably not. The truth is that, as societies become wealthier, it takes much less of their income to cover things like food and shelter; with much more disposable income to dispose of (and Americans, with our low savings rate, do dispose of our disposable income), wealthy societies will tend to consume more entertainment, travel, education, professional services, and the like. Healthcare is a service that is in very high demand-when you need it, you need it. Americans' high level of healthcare spending is not evidence that we are getting ripped off; it's evidence that we are a rich country.

Why would there be some metaphysically "correct"portion of GDP to spend on healthcare" The answer, of course, is that there isn't, just as there is no metaphysically correct level of spending on food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, bubblegum, campaign commercials, or any other item of consumption that might come to the interest of the powers in Washington.

One might as easily point out that the United States spends far more on education than do most other countries-significantly more than do Japan or Korea. And it would be difficult to argue convincingly that we are getting better results than the Japanese or the Koreans. But when it comes to education spending, the argument is precisely the opposite of that made for healthcare reform; no amount of spending on education ever is considered too much. It is impossible to imagine Barack Obama telling a joint session of Congress that we, as a nation, spend too much of our GDP on education, and that we should prune ourselves back to the level of spending seen in Singapore, which gets a very good education bang for its buck.

Why the discrepancy? The politics is obvious: US education consists of expropriating money from the private sector and transferring it to the public-since almost all education in the United States is public education. For healthcare the cash-flow vector is reversed: even before Obamacare, more than half of all U. S. healthcare spending was done by the government, but the parties cashing the checks are mostly private businesses: doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical medical-device manufacturers, and the like. President Obama is not going to tell the teachers unions that America is spending too much money on them, but he's happy to tell that to doctors and medicine-makers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I might quibble with you over the causes of US economic woes. Canada is better off these days because we didn't follow the US down the rabbit hole of deregulation. We regard the whole "invisible hand of the market" thing with a measure of skepticism. The events of the past few years have proved us right.

I don't think it was market forces that caused most of the issues. Conservatives argue that it was increased regulation in the form of Congress forcing banks and Fannie and Freddie to make risky loans that resulted in the bubble and the crash.
 
By the way, even Panetta issued an order to kill bin Laden. Would you call that murder? I believe that Panetta did what he thought was necessary to protect our country.

Bin Laden plans an attack and kills several thousand Americans. We invade his country, devastate his organization, then shoot him in front of one of his wives. I would call that social justice.
 
I don't think it was market forces that caused most of the issues. Conservatives argue that it was increased regulation in the form of Congress forcing banks and Fannie and Freddie to make risky loans that resulted in the bubble and the crash.

Exactly. The precise reason our current economic crash has persisted so long is that housing prices are depressed and will remain so for some time. As long as home prices are stagnant, consumers can't build wealth, and will be hesitant to spend.

This was in fact a result of OVER-REGULATION, not free market capitalism. The government encouraged banks like BOA to make risky loans to unqualified borrowers on the basis that everyone should own a home. This was a policy under both Clinton, and Bush administrations. This led to speculation and overbuilding in the housing market which was unsustainable.

We can try every intervention we want including more "stimulus" but the economy will not rebound until the housing market stabilizes. That means the vast inventory of foreclosures and short-sales have to disappear before anything will improve. Thank you big government!
 
Lots of patriotic-budlightdrinking-repbulican types always get upset when they see images of Che being protrayed in pop-art images because they think every communist is satanic, kitten-choking murderer.

Although I don't agree with the way Che is worshipped among the so-called hipsters (they can go to hell), Che did what he thought was best for the working class. His contribution or even intention is not black-and-white, you know... not like Hilter's.

Hell, give me one med student in US today who would give up everything and go fight a war for something he believes in....... hell, you are lucky to find a med student who would choose a specialty not based on lifestyle and money.

I'm not trying to justify anyone's behavior, just pointing out that the hippie granola types (who typically are non-violent and protest against guns) wear Che T-shirts and paint him as some sort of Robin Hood.

The picture is an icon. Mono Lisa in not just a middle class Venetian lady. Che is just a symbol of youth and idealism.


.

I disagree. It has lead to rationing, and doctor shortages that were pretty critical at one point, only solved by recruiting foreign medical graduates. US citizens wouldn't tolerate this.



We still take care of the poor in the US, and always have. Lack of healthcare insurance is not lack of healthcare access.



I think that longer life expectancy used as the sole measuring tool is a gross oversimplification. This isn't the only thing we should take into account.

As for the money comparison, I thought that the following quote by Kevin Williams was insightful:

You can not fiddle the figures for life expectancy to make a point. Thats why I used them.

The Kevin Williams quote, quotes GDP though. GDP is not a good way to compare goods and services that are not traded accross international borders extensively. That is why I used purchasing power parity dollars. So my point stands. Really the question is who benefits from all the extra spending? Not the end user if they die earlier than in a socialised system!

If you want to look at Quality Life Years lost also published by WHO it still makes my case.

Exactly. The precise reason our current economic crash has persisted so long is that housing prices are depressed and will remain so for some time. As long as home prices are stagnant, consumers can't build wealth, and will be hesitant to spend.

This was in fact a result of OVER-REGULATION, not free market capitalism. The government encouraged banks like BOA to make risky loans to unqualified borrowers on the basis that everyone should own a home. This was a policy under both Clinton, and Bush administrations. This led to speculation and overbuilding in the housing market which was unsustainable.

We can try every intervention we want including more "stimulus" but the economy will not rebound until the housing market stabilizes. That means the vast inventory of foreclosures and short-sales have to disappear before anything will improve. Thank you big government!


No one forced banks to make bad loans and it was not the bad loans that caused the problem is was the way they got hidden and bundled up in securities so that no one could tell which bank held what.

This led to unacceptable counterparty risk, ie banks refused to lend to each other and that was the problem. So nothing to do with regulation all to do with bad products.
 
No one forced banks to make bad loans and it was not the bad loans that caused the problem is was the way they got hidden and bundled up in securities so that no one could tell which bank held what.

This led to unacceptable counterparty risk, ie banks refused to lend to each other and that was the problem. So nothing to do with regulation all to do with bad products.

I disagree. The Community Reinvestment Act played a big role. Opponents to it laid out the likely consequences years before it caused and then broke the housing bubble.
 
The picture is an icon. Mono Lisa in not just a middle class Venetian lady. Che is just a symbol of youth and idealism.

Unfortunate that they used Che to get their point across. They could have used Stalin or Lenin instead. I don't think many who use his image completely understand what he did.

No one forced banks to make bad loans and it was not the bad loans that caused the problem is was the way they got hidden and bundled up in securities so that no one could tell which bank held what.

This led to unacceptable counterparty risk, ie banks refused to lend to each other and that was the problem. So nothing to do with regulation all to do with bad products.

You are correct in that no one forced the banks to make the loans. The government meddled in a free-market system and made it advantageous for banks to give those loans. Bank of America, for example could make a bad loan to someone who was under-qualified because they knew they could sell that loan to Fannie Mae (run by the government) and make a profit.

In a free-market system, no one would have been buying those bad loans, hence Bank of America, not wanting to lose money wouldn't have made them in the first place.
 
I disagree. The Community Reinvestment Act played a big role. Opponents to it laid out the likely consequences years before it caused and then broke the housing bubble.

Yes I agree, that played a part in the saga that led to the credit crunch.

Before going any further my point is that this debate tends to get polarised along political lines that fail to get to the heart of the matter.

No one comes out of this looking good. Banks, regulators, credit rating agencies, technocrats, politicians and the general public all have to take some responsibility here.

Going back to banks for a moment, while that legislation played a part, no one forced RBS to pay a silly price for AMB Amro, if Northern Rock (the first bank to run into trouble,) had not been raising cash on the short term market to lend long then to name just two instances things might not have turned so sour.

To my mind the heart of the matter is that everyone bought into the idea that risk in the capital markets and financial services industry had been managed away and abolished. Banks believed it, politicians believed it and critically so did the general public. Everyone wanted to believe that the way to get rich was through property, forgetting that the primary purpose of a house is for living in, its not supposed to be a get rich quick scheme. As the truth will always out, it turned out people were not getting rich and their property was not worth a lot after all, it was just that their cash was worth less.


I've skimmed them and they seem to take a rather pro bank narrative. Rather letting banks off the hook as if they did nothing wrong which is not quite the case.

In a free-market system, no one would have been buying those bad loans, hence Bank of America, not wanting to lose money wouldn't have made them in the first place.

What I would say to you is that the free market is not perfect. I'm happy for the market to set the price of potato based snack foods though. The fact is markets fail and when they do it has a human cost. Life is not just a football game where we can all shrug at the end and say see you next weekend.

When the market fails and banks fail government has a duty to step in. (Remember when Long Term Capital Management failed the other banks got together and bailed it out, so they suspended the normal market rules to save themselves, this time they could not so government had to.) If the British tax payer had not stepped in and bought RBS and effectively nationalised a host of other banks the global financial system would have broken down at an unimaginable human cost.

Just saying leave things to the market is just far to simplistic. There is an even bigger choice to be made. Right now the choice is between letting banks fail or letting countries fail. Markets don't make that choice governments do. Things are not as simple as you make out.

You might be happy to see banks run the world but i'm not.
 
Before going any further my point is that this debate tends to get polarised along political lines that fail to get to the heart of the matter.

Just saying leave things to the market is just far to simplistic. There is an even bigger choice to be made. Right now the choice is between letting banks fail or letting countries fail. Markets don't make that choice governments do. Things are not as simple as you make out.

You might be happy to see banks run the world but i'm not.


This is the heart of the matter:

I'd rather die a few years sooner free than live a few years more enslaved.

The greatest gift and goal any of us can strive for in this life is freedom for ourselves and for those around us.

Freedom has NEVER been the result of socialism or communism. Your goal in life can't be to never fail. That will never lead to personal growth or happiness. Poor people can be happy as long as they are free. Nobody is happy when they are not free. I fart in the general direction of Che Guevera, communism, socialism, and any other ism whose means to an end is the enslavement of the people it is attempting to help. Millions of people have been enslaved, oppressed and murdered by communism and socialism. Their souls cry out from the grave against the very idea of socialism or anything like it.

You might be happy to see socialism dictate the distribution of goods and services, but I don't trust it.

The countries WILL fail when based on communism or socialism. That is been proven again and again. The European Union is a failing endeavor that I wish to be no part of and no wish to imitate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you really believe that?

I'm assuming you are just trying to make inflammatory remarks.

Not at all, that is just the nature of icons. What does the confederate flag stand for, what about the coke bottle? Meanings change over time, that is the nature of iconic images.

This is the heart of the matter:

I'd rather die a few years sooner free than live a few years more enslaved.

The greatest gift and goal any of us can strive for in this life is freedom for ourselves and for those around us.

Freedom has NEVER been the result of socialism or communism. Your goal in life can't be to never fail. That will never lead to personal growth or happiness. Poor people can be happy as long as they are free. Nobody is happy when they are not free. I fart in the general direction of Che Guevera, communism, socialism, and any other ism whose means to an end is the enslavement of the people it is attempting to help. Millions of people have been enslaved, oppressed and murdered by communism and socialism. Their souls cry out from the grave against the very idea of socialism or anything like it.

You might be happy to see socialism dictate the distribution of goods and services, but I don't trust it.

The countries WILL fail when based on communism or socialism. That is been proven again and again. The European Union is a failing endeavor that I wish to be no part of and no wish to imitate.

Well, these are dichotomies that are increasingly unuseful. The debate is not so much between left and right but rather a matter of solving technical problems.

The people of Europe are free to make what ever arrangements they like. If they choose a Federation of Nation States that leads to a United States of Europe so be it.

Socialised healthcare is not the same as socialism. I'm all for a mixed economy.

The idea that I am not a free person in the UK is a bit amusing.

Hey, it's just a conversation, I'm not trying to wind you up. I'll take down the che avitar shortly.......I was just being funny as you intially pointed out...
 
Freedom is highly subjective and personal. In general freedom is the ability to express one's opinions and make decisions about your own life.

Government programs no matter how well-intentioned will always limit those freedoms. The individual mandate, for example limits my freedom not only to choose whether or not I have insurance, but what kind of insurance I can buy! Under Obamacare I can't buy catastrophic-only coverage if I so choose, nor can I choose to have a health savings account. Both of these are completely reasonable options for someone of means who doesn't need comprehensive OB care (I don't have a vagina) or other services mandated by the bill.

Additionally there's the moral aspect to government theft of my money. No human being should live based solely on the productive work of another.
 
Government programs no matter how well-intentioned will always limit those freedoms.

Well the US has state funded schools. You can use those or be educated privately. No one thinks state schools limit freedom.

The same thing applies to health in the UK, you can always go private if you want or stick with the NHS or use both.


No human being should live based solely on the productive work of another.

Yikes! So you are against inherited wealth? Lots of people just live on dividends from inheritied capital. Your above quote sounds very very left wing indeed. I expect you want to qualify that.
 
Well the US has state funded schools. You can use those or be educated privately. No one thinks state schools limit freedom.

The same thing applies to health in the UK, you can always go private if you want or stick with the NHS or use both.

I am speaking of the "individual mandate" in America. It takes choice completely away from the consumer and forces you to purchase a specific health insurance product that may or may not need your needs.


Yikes! So you are against inherited wealth? Lots of people just live on dividends from inheritied capital. Your above quote sounds very very left wing indeed. I expect you want to qualify that.

No. I am against the forcible confiscation of wealth from someone who is productive in order to give it to someone who produces nothing. There is nothing involuntary about inherited wealth.
 
I am against the forcible confiscation of wealth from someone who is productive in order to give it to someone who produces nothing. There is nothing involuntary about inherited wealth.

To which the standard retort is "property is theft!!"
 
To which the standard retort is "property is theft!!"

Which works out well in the real world. I have no property and it all belongs to the collective? Great! I'm going to quit my job, and spend my days "using" communal property while producing nothing.

Oh wait, the Greeks tried that.....
 
Which works out well in the real world.

Speaking of which you quietly ignored my point about education. So i'll take it you are happy with socialised education? The vast majority of Americans recieve a "state" education, seems like thats working out OK'ish.
 
Speaking of which you quietly ignored my point about education. So i'll take it you are happy with socialised education? The vast majority of Americans recieve a "state" education, seems like thats working out OK'ish.

Americans are ignorant, and know nothing of their history or science or math. I'd hardly call it a raging success.

I'm not in favor of public education, as again it represents taking resources from one person to give to another.
 
Speaking of which you quietly ignored my point about education. So i'll take it you are happy with socialised education? The vast majority of Americans recieve a "state" education, seems like thats working out OK'ish.

Our educational system is an abysmal failure, especially from the perspective of the socialist ideals it embraces. It exhausts massive amounts of money and squanders it in the worst way possible. In an effort to provide the same education to all americans, regardless of race or income, it produces vastly inferior results to minorities. The Wall Street Journal reported that:

In the year 2000's standardized NAEP test for math ahievement, this is the percentage of black eighth graders who passed respectively in some famous states: New York, 8%; California, 6%; Michigan, 6%; Tennessee, 6%; Texas, 7%; Arkansas, 2%. Indeed the national average for black eighth graders is 6% compared to 40% for white students, a 34% achievement gap.

John Hood said,
Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and other performance measures shows how poorly served America's public school students really are. Just five percent of 17-year-old high school students in 1988 could read well enough to understand and use information found in technical materials, literary essays, historical documents, and college-level texts. This percentage has been falling since 1971.

Average Scholastic Aptitude Test scores fell 41 points between 1972 and 1991. Apologists for public education argue that such factors as the percentage of minority students taking the SAT can explain this drop. Not true. Scores for whites have dropped. And the number of kids scoring over 600 on the verbal part of the SAT has fallen by 37 percent since 1972, so the overall decline can't be blamed merely on mediocre students "watering down" the results.

Only six percent of 11th graders in 1986 could solve multi-step math problems and use basic algebra. Sixty percent did not know why The Federalist was written, 75 percent didn't know when Lincoln was president, and one in five knew what Reconstruction was.

Real spending on schooling in the United State has sky-rocketed, growing an average of 3.5 percent above and behond the rate of inflation for a century.

The teacher's unions have crippled the industry, with their lavash retirement packages, their constant demands at lower class size while putting up outcomes that would embarass any corporation.
 
Agree with Jaracaboa. The hard truth to U.S. education is that well-to-do Whites pay for their kids to go to private school, while minority kids languish in public classrooms.

Any effort to get minorities out of public classrooms and into private or charter schools is met with strident opposition from the teacher's unions (look at what happened with the D.C. school system.)

Meanwhile political correctness has hobbled the ability of teachers to provide kids with the basics. California just mandated that schools teach "Gay History". While not a bad thing in itself it gets in the way of basic education in a state with plummeting literacy and science standings.
 
Socialised healthcare is not the same as socialism. I'm all for a mixed economy.

Socialized healthcare IS socialism. It is a centrally planned endeavor that pays no attention to market forces, prices or the desires of the people it "serves". If the socialized educational system of the USA is any predicter of the success of a socialized medicine endeavor in the USA, I want no part of it.
 
Socialized healthcare IS socialism. It is a centrally planned endeavor that pays no attention to market forces, prices or the desires of the people it "serves". If the socialized educational system of the USA is any predicter of the success of a socialized medicine endeavor in the USA, I want no part of it.

Agreed. I'm not sure why everyone snickers when Libertarians like me use that word "socialism". Socialism is a term that applies to any product or service that is centralized under government control and distributed by government. It functions independent of market forces, which is why it is inherently bad.

A society can have a socialist policy without itself becoming socialist. In fact a completely socialist society cannot exist as no goods or services would be produced (since there would be no incentive to produce them and demand would be infinite, as they would be free).
 
Americans are ignorant, and know nothing of their history or science or math.

Admirably frank of you. Although most American I have met would not live up to that generalisation.

Socialized healthcare IS socialism. It is a centrally planned endeavor that pays no attention to market forces, prices or the desires of the people it "serves". If the socialized educational system of the USA is any predicter of the success of a socialized medicine endeavor in the USA, I want no part of it.

Planning is not a bad think in itself as you seem to suggest.

The system in the UK is that services are free at the point of delivery, based on clinical need, within available resources. Call it what you will. Generally their is a national consensus that that is inviolate. Conservatives, liberal democrats (currently in coallition) and socialist labourites all agree on the above.

It is not true that market forces do not function within the NHS. It has its own internal market. Patients can choose which hospital they use for any particular intervention and they can choose a primary care provider as well.

You mention costs. Part of the beauty of the system is the huge bargaining power it has. The US government pays far more for many drugs and "spare parts" than the NHS does. The trick is to know the value of something, not just the price.



Agreed. I'm not sure why everyone snickers when Libertarians like me use that word "socialism". Socialism is a term that applies to any product or service that is centralized under government control and distributed by government. It functions independent of market forces, which is why it is inherently bad.

A society can have a socialist policy without itself becoming socialist.

As an observer the US political system does seem dreadfully polarised at the moment. The art of compromise seems almost dead. There is often a middle way but no one seems to want to take it.

One think I will certainly concede is that Europe will never be as "rich" as the US by choice. Essentially Europe will never achieve the same sort of productivity because we trade efficiency off for a better quality of life. Longer holidays, better terms and conditions of employment, stronger trade unions, better pensions.

The US work until you are dead system does make the US richer but at a price that many Europeans don't feel is worth the sacrafice. For instance I get more than eight weeks holiday a year, not including more than two extra weeks of national holiday, study leave, compassionate leave, six months paid sick leave and on and on it goes.

I couldn't survive on just two weeks off a year. Each to their own.
 
Last edited:
The US work until you are dead system does make the US richer but at a price that many Europeans don't feel is worth the sacrafice. For instance I get more than eight weeks holiday a year, not including more than two extra weeks of national holiday, study leave, compassionate leave, six months paid sick leave and on and on it goes.

I couldn't survive on just two weeks off a year. Each to their own.

Work is required to pay for your social welfare state, and Europeans don't work enough to pay for it (as Britain and Greece are finding out). It's great to have 8 weeks of paid vacation, full pension, free healthcare and free university, but who is going to pay for it?

I just took two weeks off in Europe this Summer, and am taking another week off next week for the Caribbean. I hardly have dearth of holiday time since I can work as much or little as I want.
 
You mention costs. Part of the beauty of the system is the huge bargaining power it has. The US government pays far more for many drugs and "spare parts" than the NHS does. The trick is to know the value of something, not just the price.

So, there's the "value" of something, then there is downright pricefixing and patronizing. While not many of us are arguing our system is perfect, it's much better than yours.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-denies-effective-cancer-drugs-due-to-cost-888385.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8564213/Older-people-receive-worse-NHS-cancer-care.html
Rather than fix it, let's go after the whistleblowers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002329/Bullied-NHS-cancer-patient-complained-treatment-online.html
Also, another "US medicine isn't as bad as you think" link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html
 
So, there's the "value" of something, then there is downright pricefixing and patronizing. While not many of us are arguing our system is perfect, it's much better than yours.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ffective-cancer-drugs-due-to-cost-888385.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8564213/Older-people-receive-worse-NHS-cancer-care.html
Rather than fix it, let's go after the whistleblowers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ncer-patient-complained-treatment-online.html
Also, another "US medicine isn't as bad as you think" link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

First, I used OECD and WHO data to make my point. These articles are 1. a bit thin. 2. Out of date 3. Misleading expositions from a right wing press who have a habit of printing scare stories in an attempt to destroy a national consensus about the "rightness" of the NHS.

The last article about cancer survival is interesting but US survival rates have a lot to do with defensive practice in the US. If UK doctors practiced like that they would be regarded as incompetent by their peers. Running every test possible (regardless of cost) will always lead to early detection and hence better survival rates overall. Generally the UK could do more screening but a close examination of the figures tends to show it's not really worth it.

So it is a cultural artifact. Europeans tend to have a different attitude to death as well. Much more accepting of the inevitable and less inclined to prolong a poor quallity of life at great expense.

Fine if you think your system is better. I was engaged in a conversation about difference. I'm not interested in an argumentative pissing contest.
 
Work is required to pay for your social welfare state, and Europeans don't work enough to pay for it (as Britain and Greece are finding out). It's great to have 8 weeks of paid vacation, full pension, free healthcare and free university, but who is going to pay for it?

That is true and the welfare state in the UK needs to shrink. However there are choices to be made. You can make health a priority and spend less on defense for instance.

Britain and Greece are totally different examples. The UK is not part of the Eurozone and we currently enjoy quite low interest rates so relatively we are doing quite well. Our deficit reduction plans are on track(ish).

Greece should never have been in the Euro to start with. On this point I agree with you, Greece has been far to profligate and the French and Germans patience will only last as long as Greek default vs Greek leaving the Euro does not threaten the European project.

Personally I think at the end of things greater economic intergration with a Central Bank is going to be the end point. A United States of Europe with central taxing powers and an army and so on.

p.s. The US is in technical default through currency devaluation and while the dollar may survive, especially if the Euro fails, I wouldn't bet my life on it.
 
I don't trust WHO data. The WHO has ulterior motives and skews data to make a social statement (infant mortality for example).

You are right. The U.S. is in default, and that's just with the government controlling 40% of healthcare dollars.
 
The fact is markets fail and when they do it has a human cost. Life is not just a football game where we can all shrug at the end and say see you next weekend.
Markets fail with capitalism, countries fail with socialism. Socialism has cost millions of human lives and will continue to devastate the lives of people across the world as long as it is tolerated.
You mention costs. Part of the beauty of the system is the huge bargaining power it has. The US government pays far more for many drugs and "spare parts" than the NHS does. The trick is to know the value of something, not just the price.
The UK and the rest of the world are intellectual parasites, feasting on the new ideas and innovations provided by a capitalist (kind of) medical system in the US. I like the following quote from Kevin D. Williams:
Socialism is impossible, because without prices there can be no economic calculation, and therefore, no economic planning in the real sense of the phrase. To the extent that the socialist powers… engaged in economic calculation, they were able to do so only because prices were being calculated in the capitalist economies. Socialism…was not only a material and economic parasite succored by capitalist prosperity, but also an intellectual parasite. In other words, socialism need(s) capitalism to do its thinking for it.

Essentially Europe will never achieve the same sort of productivity because we trade efficiency off for a better quality of life. Longer holidays, better terms and conditions of employment, stronger trade unions, better pensions.
You say this with seeming pride...I can only shake my head.

I like the following clip. Doesn't it sum up the situation the UK is in nicely?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D0VhS8qXT0

...the welfare state in the UK needs to shrink.

p.s. The US is in technical default through currency devaluation and while the dollar may survive, especially if the Euro fails, I wouldn't bet my life on it

You recognize that the welfare state in the UK needs to shrink and that the US is in default, but you still want us to socialize medicine to emulate your failing welfare state which would greatly expand our welfare state. This would worsen our economy, which would in turn, hurt the UK greatly. This seems incongruent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't trust WHO data. The WHO has ulterior motives and skews data to make a social statement (infant mortality for example).

Typically the US dislikes anything it cannot control.


Markets fail with capitalism, countries fail with socialism. Socialism has cost millions of human lives and will continue to devastate the lives of people across the world as long as it is tolerated.

It's not a case of tolerating. People vote for it of their own free will.

The UK and the rest of the world are intellectual parasites, feasting on the new ideas and innovations provided by a capitalist (kind of) medical system in the US.

That is funny. I accept cancer won't be cured in the Sudan. However with respect to other OECD countries, the correct comparitor, parasite is the wrong word. GSK is a UK company for instance and innovation generally especially in biotech is thriving.

What I accept is that we benefit hugely from the R&D spend comming from the US. Given that in the UK and France life expectancy is longer the correct characterisation, rather than parasite, is that the UK and France are just "winning the game". So without being too inflamatory don't be such a sore loser.



I like the following clip. Doesn't it sum up the situation the UK is in nicely?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D0VhS8qXT0

Link not working but if it is of the recent riots all that demonstrates is that a handful of people can cause a lot of trouble. I could put up some shots of Compton but I don't think either of would really believe you could generalise from them.




You recognize that the welfare state in the UK needs to shrink and that the US is in default, but you still want us to socialize medicine to emulate your failing welfare state which would greatly expand our welfare state. This would worsen our economy, which would in turn, hurt the UK greatly. This seems incongruent.


I don't want the US to do anything. It is not for me to say but imo Americans of every stripe seem to trust government much less than the average European. The European predispostion to think that government has a bigger role to play in society combined with this greater trust, it highlights a big difference with the US.

As I see it the upset in the US is mostly due to the federal government imposing some solutions that state governments (who have to balance the books and can't just print money and need to worry about the bond market) have to pay for. I can see all sorts of reasons why people wouldn't like whats happening.

What I am saying is that the NHS is not all about socialism. Going back to the Boer War 1880 - 1881 the UK government had trouble finding healthy young men for the army. After the second world war the general health of the population was appalling. Doing something about this was imperative. The service was founded on the principle that it would be free at the point of delivery and based on clinical need. Several years later the caveat "within available resources" was added.

Within this framework nothing is off the table. A huge part of the NHS is already run by private providers. General practitioners (family doctors) are nearly all private partnerships contracted to provide medical services and get paid on a per capita basis. They are the route and refer to the rest of the service.

The department of health sets a general framework and standards and something like strategic health authorities commission secondary services. Most of these are provided by the NHS but any willing provider can bid to run those services.

Every commission that has ever looked at NHS funding has concluded that funding it out of general taxation is the best option. The latest report was done by Wanless. A noteable banker on the board of several banks and city institutions. Hardly a pinko lefty.

So this whole socialist thing is overblown and just based on a misunderstanding about what really happens. Of course it is very beaurocratic but then it NHS trusts don't run marketing departments so it all rather balances out.
 
Last edited:
What I accept is that we benefit hugely from the R&D spend comming from the US. Given that in the UK and France life expectancy is longer the correct characterisation, rather than parasite, is that the UK and France are just "winning the game". So without being too inflamatory don't be such a sore loser.

The cognitive dissonance is deafening. So I show you stats to indicate cancer survival is better in the US. You argue that it doesn't matter/quality of life/bull**** excuses.
Then you turn around and keep bringing up life expectancy which has been pointed out multiple times to include infant mortality statistics.
You can't have it both ways.
 
Link works just fine here half a world away from you. Maybe the BBC or Verizon or Cable & Wireless or whomever it is that is "the man" in the UK is keeping it from you! Nanny state! (<-- that's a joke, son) (<-- THAT references Foghorn Leghorn)

Ah. Normal service resumed. Very good very droll, rather like the two men stranded on an island who made ends meet taking in each others laundry. I got the joke my good man, I am from the UK not Germany EDIT(<-- Germans always explain their jokes, with good reason to be fair) but thankyou for explaining the reference messers Mel Blanc. I might not have got that even though I rather fancy myself an expert on the North American argot.

I can after all name every American President, locate Portland on a map, recite the Gettysburg Address, am familiar with the Articles of Confederation, The 1812 War, watched many episodes of Leave it to beaver, I love Lucy, Hill St. Blues and The Wire, not to mention my most prized possession, a full boxed set of WKRP in Cincinati "The Directors Cut" featuring many out takes including the American ideal of beauty, Loni Anderson.

I am not to be trifled with!!

This btw is humor and football....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79vdlEcWxvM
 
Last edited:
The cognitive dissonance is deafening. So I show you stats to indicate cancer survival is better in the US. You argue that it doesn't matter/quality of life/bull**** excuses.
Then you turn around and keep bringing up life expectancy which has been pointed out multiple times to include infant mortality statistics.
You can't have it both ways.


I didn't say it didn't matter. I said it was the result to two things. The main one the way medicine is practiced and the way services are funded. I did not say it did not matter. If the finger is to be pointed at anyone it is politicians in the UK who pretend that the UK will ever match US survival rates. It simply wont happen. You can't have a publicly funded system and achieve it. It is a trade off.

On the point about infant mortality skewing the difference between OECD countries, well you will have to flesh that out. If you are talking about reported figures from third world countries, I am not sure how that is relevant. So I would be interested to know just what you are referring to. It hard to debate a point when someone says they don't trust WHO numbers. I am open to being convinced though.
 
Last edited:
Socialized UK dental care.



Need I say more?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can after all name every American President, locate Portland on a map, recite the Gettysburg Address, am familiar with the Articles of Confederation, The 1812 War, watched many episodes of Leave it to beaver, I love Lucy, Hill St. Blues and The Wire, not to mention my most prized possession, a full boxed set of WKRP in Cincinati "The Directors Cut" featuring many out takes including the American ideal of beauty, Loni Anderson.

I've seen Strange Brew, so I think I know British culture.

I also know somebody from the UK. My cousin married a guy from the UK... but he's a nice guy.
 
Bin Laden plans an attack and kills several thousand Americans. We invade his country, devastate his organization, then shoot him in front of one of his wives. I would call that social justice.

Bin Laden is Saudi royalty, who started his career sponsored by American tax dollars in Afghanistan, and was killed in Pakistan, that statement is so full of fail.
 
Socialized OK dental care.

Need I say more?

Hey, be nice. I could point you to a WHO site but you think it was fiddled.

Free market tummy below.
fatty-1fcm.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've seen Strange Brew, so I think I know British culture.

I also know somebody from the UK. My cousin married a guy from the UK... but he's a nice guy.


I don't know what your are saying....I really don't....🙂

Churchills mother was an American and he turned out OK.:laugh:
 
Bin Laden is Saudi royalty, who started his career sponsored by American tax dollars in Afghanistan, and was killed in Pakistan, that statement is so full of fail.

I guess I don't consider Saudi Arabia HIS country as he was banished from there. You don't think it was poetic justice to shoot his brains out in front of one of his wives?
 
I don't know what your are saying....I really don't....🙂

Churchills mother was an American and he turned out OK.:laugh:

That is because you Brits speak some kind of polluted English dialect. I have had several experiences just like yours above while reading your posts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've seen Strange Brew, so I think I know British culture.

I also know somebody from the UK. My cousin married a guy from the UK... but he's a nice guy.

That is because you Brits speak some kind of polluted English dialect. I have had several experiences just like yours above while reading your posts.

I'm having trouble following you here (and I'm born and bred USA) - "Strange Brew" was Canadian (heavily), and, although part of the Commonwealth, the Canadians will be first to tell you that they aren't British.

As far as his way of writing, I don't actually see any British-isms.

So, if you're being humorous, it's a bit convoluted and/or inaccessible.
 
So, if you're being humorous, it's a bit convoluted and/or inaccessible.

I'll try to quit being inaccessible. I was trying to match the ludicrousness of his statements about understanding the "argot" of the USA. I had to look up argot in the dictionary to help me do that however. I realize that Strange Brew is in Canada. I thought it would be ironic for me to accuse him of speaking a dialect when clearly we are an off-shoot of British culture and language. Sorry Ibid, I guess I'm worse than a German. Other people ask me to explain my jokes even when I don't think they need explaining.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He just can't accept that his beloved social welfare state is collapsing and no longer viable. Ultimately there isn't enough money to pay for free everything for everyone, especially when you take 8 weeks of vacation and have a 30-hour work week.

To be fair the U.S. is collapsing too, but it's a combination of foolish spending, corruption and our own untenable welfare state (Social Security and Medicare)
 
Pretty much the only point that I disagree with you on. I think we are in a position to make changes. As Emergency Physicians, we should be the most prominent advocates of a big, tall, well guarded wall on the border. Place a few thousand soldiers on the border. Heck, let half the soldiers build the wall while the other half stand guard.

Well, as a retired Soldier/Airman, who's done some of that (the building), I would say that the guarding runs well afoul of posse commitatus and is a bad idea.* It's also pretty presumptive. It's also out of the question, seeing as a large number of Army missions are already being done by Airmen and Sailors. Unless you want to pay taxes for a few tens of thousands more troops (heck, I may even get a recall to active duty to act as instructor) and their support.

None of these questions have easy answers.

I'm also a legal immigrant and naturalized citizen who wound up illegal for 3 years because our lawyer was either a crook or idiot and gave us bad advice, but we had a hearing with INS and resolved it, eventually. I've never met an immigrant who had a straightforward transition. The system is very, very overloaded, chaotic and inconsistent even for the well-intentioned.

There are also large numbers of illegal Asians coming in through Long Beach, NY and across the Canuckistani border, though I suspect they don't clog ERs as much.

* "If it is necessary to shoot an intruder, attempt to wound so they may be questioned. We will now go to the range and practice shooting center of mass." I have 25 years of Expert ratings, Army and AF, including a dozen perfect scores (40/40 up to 350 meters), including wearing a gas mask, and I've taught Primary Marksmanship Instruction. JUST IN CASE the person at the other end is not illegal or has some extenuating circumstances, my buddies and I are the WRONG PEOPLE to have "apprehending" suspects at the border. We'll save the ER and overwork the morgues. Not by planning, just by trained reflex.

What you want are cops, not soldiers. /rant
 
Top