Stephen says Brit's having plenty of children (well, sort of)

In article <1191832897.604653.85010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Stephen Morgan <grauniad2liberty@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 6 Oct, 22:52, PolishKnight <mar...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1191497414.269244.327...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Stephen Morgan <grauniad2libe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 4 Oct, 01:23, PolishKnight <mar...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1191429690.136738.101...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Stephen Morgan <grauniad2libe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

Yeah, socialism is the worst possible system except for all the
others.

That was said by Churchill, I believe, about democracy. He fought
nazism or, if you didn't know, National Socialism, that had taken over
most "first world" countries in Europe...

He was stoned during the 1945 election campaign and soundly thrashed
in the polls. He didn't actually become an elected Prime Minister
until 1951. People thought more of socialist policies than of heroic
speeches.

Yet, you rewrote his quote.

Good quote. Bad man, good speaker.

Interesting. I read on spectator.org that there was this new leftist
dislike of Churchill that has emerged recently that contradicts the
massive love affair the Brits had with him previously similar to the
American's relationship with George Washington.

Perhaps this is why:

"Although the importance of Churchill's role in World War II is
undeniable, he had many enemies in his own country. He expressed
contempt for a number of popular ideas, in particular public health care
and better public education, and his stance produced much popular
opposition, particularly among those who had fought in the war.[citation
needed] Immediately following the close of the war in Europe, Churchill
was defeated in the 1945 election by Clement Attlee and the Labour
Party.[60] Some historians think that many British voters believed that
the man who had led the nation so well in war was not the best man to
lead it in peace. Others see the election result as a reaction not
against Churchill personally, but against the Conservative Party's
record in the 1930s under Baldwin and Chamberlain. During the opening
broadcast of the election campaign, Churchill astonished many of his
admirers by warning that a Labour government would introduce into
Britain "some form of Gestapo, no doubt humanely administered in the
first instance". Churchill had been genuinely worried during the war by
the inroads of state bureaucracy into civil liberty, and was clearly
influenced by Friedrich Hayek's anti-totalitarian tract, The Road to
Serfdom (1944)."

What a "bad" guy. He knew what he was talking about and his words are
as relevent today as back then. No wonder the preachers of Orwellian
"positive discrimination" hate him so much...

Oh, and I'm sure he wouldn't have mangled someone else's saying and
tried to make it his own. He didn't have to. He has a library full of
books he WROTE and ABOUT him filled with them.

"When Winston was born lots of fairies swooped down on his cradle with
gifts - imagination, eloquence, industry, ability, and then came one
fairy who said, 'No one person has a right to so many gifts,' picked
him up and gave him a shake and twist that denied him wisdom and
judgment."
~Stanley Baldwin 1936

"Churchill's greatest achievement was his refusal to capitulate when
defeat seemed imminent, and he remained a strong opponent of any
negotiations with Germany throughout the war. Few others in the Cabinet
had this degree of resolve. By adopting a policy of no surrender,
Churchill kept democracy alive in the UK and created the basis for the
later Allied counter-attacks of 1942-45, with Britain serving as a
platform for the supply of Soviet Union and the liberation of Western
Europe."

Yeah, how dumb, er, stupid was that!

Turns out democracy didn't feel the same way about him as he
did about it.

One could say the same about the recent immigrants and their multiple
offspring, eh? :-)

I don't see what you're getting at.

Howz Londistan coming along? :-)

Health care is "cheaper" in other western countries because:

1) Rationing and waiting lists. HMO's in the USA catch a lot of
flak
for rationing but they're actually not bad compared to most
socialist
health care in these countries. Many Americans CHOOSE to pay more
for
PPO's for a better doctor selection.

Most "socialist" countries don't have waiting lists, only the UK
which
has historically low levels of government health funding.

2) Medicaid: Most of these "socialized healthcare is cheap" claims
are
based upon the U.S. blowing trillions on almost UNLIMITED NATIONAL
health care for senior citizens.

How many other first world countries DON'T provide almost unlimited
care for the elderly?

Nearly all of them don't provide almost unlimited care for ANYONE.

Untrue. Anyone who needs healthcare anywhere in western Europe gets
it. Full stop.

I guess "full stop" means after a few weeks or so... :-)

No, it means people get what they need.

And that's largely the case in the U.S.A as well. Poor people get
emergency care by law including illegals.

Ironically, national healthcare in the states is being held up by a
special interest group wanting to hog all the benefits for themselves.

I love class warfare. Marx had a point...

3) Cheap USA made drugs. It's strange to me that Canada is able to
negotiate a better volume discount for their 33 million citizens
(more
or less) when many HMO's in this country probably have that kind of
subscriber base, but there you go. Good for Canada and Europe, but
not
a testament to their healthcare system being "better".

It means a single national provider can get cheaper drugs. It is, in
other words, evidence that the non-American system is better in that
it allows better deals to be struck and drugs to be cheaper.

This would seem to imply that America shouldn't adopt socialist
solutions such as national healthcare because they'd still be
"American"
solutions.

America should apply the most efficient system, in this case one that
originates elsewhere.

Hmmm, originates elsewhere...

It's strange how the left in Europe no longer embrace "diversity" and
welcome muslims and third world immigrants and their wise natural ways.

Nice attempt to change the subject. I have no interest in immigration,
only in the efficient use of healthcare resources and tax moneys.

When you argue that the U.S. health care system is inefficent and
problematic, the issue of millions of illegals burdening the system is
an issue whether you want to "change the subject" or not.

For example, third world countries have a much smaller carbon footprint
so if you just give up electricity, running water, etc. you'll protect
the earth AND have the most "efficient" system!

This doesn't seem to have much to do with healthcare.

You argued that it made sense to adopt the "efficient" practices of
other countries and this is an example of that.

How about it? Care to embrace alternative solutions? :-) (Oh, wait,
give a few years with those low birthrates and you will!)

Birthrate in Britain is 1.8, population still going up even without
immigrants (mostly with the lederly, of course).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece
"Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby
boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by
The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are
included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas
into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver."

Tell you what, if your country still exists as it is in 40 years we'll
give it a thought...

In forty years California, Texas and New Mexico won't be in America
anymore...

Pfaw! That's hardly news to anyone that many CONSERVATIVES in Texas
have wanted to secede and go independent for decades (and take their oil
with them). :-) California wouldn't bother since the LAST thing
Mexicans who went there want is to have Mexico take them over again.
(That would be rather pointless, wouldn't it?)

Nope, they want those generous welfare benefits offered by blue states
and often at the expense of their economies.

4) The Breck Girl: John Edwards made billions using class action
suits
to shake down big-pocketed pharmaceutical firms and doctors where
he
pocketed half (or more) of the monies.

I don't understand this reference.

The Breck Girl is a joke by Ann Coulter about John Edwards metrosexual
tendencies to spend huge amounts of money on his hair and makeup.

He sent his wife after Coulter to try to argue with him. He wasn't man
enough to do so himself.

That's not really relevant ot healthcare then.

You may wish to sweep it under the rug, but one of the Democratic
party's biggest contributors are the trial lawyers. They would be more
than happy to see people die from medical problems provided they can
make a buck (or more) off of it...

This is one of the cases where democrat party corruption is useful...

The Democratic party don't support nationalised healthcare, so this
isn't relevant.

News to me... Really?

5) The AMA medical union, er, "association" that discourages
foreign
doctors from coming to the USA to practice, sets high arbitrary
educational standards (do you feel more healthy because a doctor
studies
"pre-med" for 4 years rather than just going to medical school?),
and
allows hospitals to exploit doctors for years as interns.

Again, this is the same everywhere in the developed world. The BMA
and
GMC double up for the role in Britain.

I was suggested one area to cut costs besides nationalization.

As I say, there doesn't seem to be enough profit in cutting costs for
the companies involved to do it. So much for the profit motive.

These are costs beyond the companies' reach.

Excuses.

They aren't like bureaucrats who can say what they like and not get
called on it, right? :-)

Government bureaucrats wouldn't do much to reduce those expenses either.
Hell, they'd probably shoot them higher.

Yet those costs are lower in nationalised systems.

Take on 38 million Mexicans off the streets and see how that works out.
:-)

Oh, wait, you'll get them soon enough. It's a BOY! :-)

6) Illegal immigrants. You don't think they paid for all those
anchor
baby medical bills by picking lettuce and doing daycare for career
women, do you?

The British population is 10% immigrants. A twelth of those in the
last couple of years.

Er, you must have missed the part about illegality. Are you familiar
with the term? And our percent is a lot higher.

Economically it doesn't matter if they're legal. They're still doing
low paid jobs and sucking on the NHS.

Wrongo.

It's ironic that the business supporters of amnesty for illegals only
enjoy such cheap labor because the illegals are willing to work under
the table and for less.

20 years ago, Reagan made an immigration compromise and passed laws
against hiring illegals in exchange for an amnesty. Those millions of
illegals are not out in the fields anymore.

It's ironic that those who claim to care about the working class and
want to help raise wages are encouraging businesses to grant amnesty for
workers who are willing to forego and undermine decent workplace
standards.

As a socialist I'm largely neutral on immigration. I think we
shouldn't let all those Poles in because I don't like them.

Fascinating. Really.

If you like, you could have some more of them if you like. They LOVE
socialism! Their high birthrates can offset the darwinistic dieouts of
career women...

We've got plenty already, thanks.

What?!?! I thought the left LOVED "diversity" and getting rid of those
problematic white people.

I am a problematic white people. I don't like diversity, although
anyone black who chooses to be homogenous is fine by me.

They should stop choosing to be black?

The problem, dear chap, is that with feminism hating men and white men
being slaves to the gestapo NHS (as Churchill put it), you really need
to start serving those immigrants because, well, they're up to the task
of having boys and you're not. See?

You don't want Poles (who are about as white as they come) so instead
you'll get Mohammad.

Sorry, but I don't think that's a model the U.S. wants to follow. Hell,
it makes our illegal problem look minor by comparison....

Now, all of a sudden, the consequences of self-hating cheap sentimental
white guilt are becoming obvious. Don't worry though: You'll get MORE!
Lots lots more!!!

7) Affirmative action. Russian doctors are told to not bother
trying
to
get an internship because the slots are made available for women
and
minorities first.

The NHS has a problem: their highest ever GP numbers are ephemeral
because they're all part time women. Not a private/public issue.

I understand that the British health care system has a worse reputation
than Canada...

As I say, the NHS has historically low levels of funding. Almost all
other nationalised systems are better. The NHS, however, is the
cheapest. Or was until the Thatcher/Blair era introduced various
privatre contractors to do the catering and cleaning anyway.

So... the caterers and cleaners are to blaim for doctors taking weeks to
get around to checking on their patients! That explains it!

The doctors don't take weaks. The cleaners are to blame for hospital
acquired infections, the caterers for people coming out of hospital
with malnutrition.

As you can see, there's lots of fat for "private" healthcare to cut
AND
difficult for a liberal socialist program to address.

Yet the fact remains cheap public healthcare and expensive private
healthcare. Obviously the profit motive is an insufficient motive for
efficiency.

The fact remains that... you haven't made your case. In that vacuum,
I'll show the opposite:

http://www.leftwatch.com/archives/years/2002/000019.html
"Researchers at the Institute for Global Health wanted to test the
claim
made by the British National Health Service that its use of resources
is
among the most efficient of any health care system in the world. So it
compared the cost-efficiency of the NHS with the cost-efficency of
Kaiser Permanente, the largest HMO in the United States. The results
were recently published in the British Medical Journal and did not
reflect very well on the British system.

The researchers chose Kaiser Permanente because it was similar to the
NHS in a number of ways, including the way it is organized, the amount
it spends to deliver health care, and services provided.

The main findings of the study were that those covered by Kaiser
Permanente had significantly better medical access than those covered
by
the NHS.

Kaiser Permanente patients spent, on average, more than twice as long
consulting with physicians. Whereas it took 13 weeks for 80 percent of
patients referred to a specialists to actually see a specialist, 80
percent of similar people in Kaiser Permanente's system saw a
specialist
within two weeks. Ninety percent of Kaiser Permanente's patients who
needed inpatient treatment or surgery had such surgery within 13 weeks.
Only 41 percent of NHS patients who need such treatment had received it
after 13 weeks.

Most HMO's have policies limiting the amount of hospitalization they
will cover, and such policies are generally very unpopular. But the
clear implication is that the more money spent on hospitalization, the
less that can be spent on providing access to other forms of care, such
as specialists and surgical procedures.

In other words the HMO rations care, even after cherry-picking people
who can afford to pay their rates and who aren't too big a liability

Most people in the states get their HMO health care through their
employer.

Indeederooney.

Well, most of our people have jobs. :-)

If they are unemployed and buy privately, yes, the HMO's may not want to
cover them BUT they then often qualify for medicaid and then get
UNLIMITED care anyway. (Hence, the inefficiency of the system.)

Medicaid doesn't provide any proper care. Plenty of poor Americans
can't afford proper care, especially GP care and expensive procedures.

I suppose it's better if they go to Europe and wait to not get it then
:-) (Kind of like that Marxist utopia that will come along any day now
and the "British" women will start breeding again.)

You're comparing apples and oranges:

Apples and oranges in what we've got.

A semi-private health care system
in the states where workers are employed privately and seniors and the
disabled get ultra good care and drug companies make a profit to Western
Europe where they buy drugs from the U.S. and give everyone so-so
medical care.

Anyone who wants to pay for their care can. Everyone gets the best in
the world paid only with tax moneys. Someof the world's biggest pharma
companies, like Glaxo, are based in the UK but anywhere could get
cheap drugs if they could exercise market power, like the NHS can.
Sounds like you're arguing for a health-monopoly to bargain the drug
dealers down on prices.

Which is it? Do the evil corporations control prices and make obscene
profits or are they competitive and just doing the best they can?

the NHS provides care for all based on medical, rather than financial,
grounds.

So I can just walk in and get care?

Yeah. You have the register with a GP, so they have your medical
records. You have to wait in Casualty, the Accident and Emergency
ward. There's nothing to pay, even for foreigners if it's an
emergency.

Er, so you're saying I don't get ALL the care I NEED like you
pontificated about above? :-)

Looks like just apples after all.

The USA's health care system has the burden of 30 million illegal
immigrants.

30 million in a population of 300 million. We have 6 million in 60
million.

That's just the illegals. There are about that much (if not more) in
additional legal immigrants granted amnesty privately along with their
children.

But don't worry mate, you'll catch up...

As Alain Enthoven notes in a Commentary that appears with the study, a
major reason for the differing efficiency is competition. People who
are
insured by Kaiser Permanente have a lot more options to switch to an
alternative provider if they are dissatisfied, whereas customers of the
NHS have very limited options, since the NHS is supported by their
taxes
regardless of whether they would prefer an alternative system. "

They have the right to go private if they do wish. The UK spends less
government money on healthcare per capita than the US government, so
that argument falls flat.

But Kaiser Permanente is not a government department...

Indeed not.

If you like, compare HMO's who "cherry pick" to, say, the UK which
"cherry picks" their immigrants...

Can't cherry pick illegals, all EU borders are open.

So Poles have full rights in England? Cool! I mean, you said this
great commie system was about full stop medical rights and all. Oh,
wait, that was just Pravda...

...
Unemployment about 4%. Less in Britain. Of course,
loads of immigrants with jobs. Personally I think American leftists
should try to organise and convert their fellow-countrymen.

They do. Non-stop. The problem is that the country"men" who convert
don't have children hence their need for voting rights for illegals.
Darwin would be proud.

From yahoo news and wikipedia:

German unemployment hits six-year low of 9.2%. -

French unemployment is back "under" 10%.

Spanish Unemployment 7.6%

Where's this "4%" figure you came up with?

UK.

So it's "less in Britain" except you were talking about Britain.

I guess that's about as honest as a NHL Doctor's estimate of timely
care. :-)

Of course, the US only counts those claiming benefits, benefits
which expire quickly but are paid indefinately in the UK and Europe.


http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/unemployment.htm
UK Unemployment
Labour Market Statistics

September 12 2007 - The unemployment rate remained at 5.4% - down by
0.1% over the quarter and 0.2% on last year. 29.1 million people were in
work in the period May to July according to the labour force survey
(LFS). This is the highest on record, up by 84,000 on the quarter, and
up by 132,000 on the last year."

Now I see where you got your great "efficient" statistics from. Kind of
reminds me of those great factory stats during communist Europe...

regards,
PolishKnight
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT Health Care and Illegal Residents
    ... I support the house version of border security first. ... There is a federal law about providing emergency care. ... We're doing lots of stuff as a nation that we don't have the money to ... without health insurance 'manage to get health care without using the ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Why healthcare in the U.S. is "expensive" (and why Andres a lumberjack hes ok...)
    ... nazism or, if you didn't know, National Socialism, that had taken over ... has historically low levels of government health funding. ... health care for senior citizens. ... low paid jobs and sucking on the NHS. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Family told by NHS: Alzheimers is not a health condition
    ... Family told by NHS: Alzheimer's is not a 'health condition' ... them for six years of care. ... elderly people must pay for their own residential ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: the state of the nhs after 10 years of the one eyed nose picker....
    ... Simple arithmetic tells you that someone living to be a hundred - probably drawing £12 k net in benefits pa on average (OAP + housing benefit/care home costs, free prescriptions, health care, travel pass etc) is a vastly more expensive proposition than someone who dies aged 70. ... need some form of social support and if they live past 85 probably ... shades of Nye Bevan's absurd belief that as the NHS matured the demand for health care would decline because the population's health would generally improve. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: What Michael Moore left out
    ... Still, with all it's failures, I would defend the NHS with every inch of my ... The bottom line is that if you are poor, you have health care, end of story. ... Reason has a good review of the latest Michael Moore movie. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
Loading