United States Almost had Universal Health Care

[Norstal]

You are exaggerating, of course socialism is not necesarly bad but marxism and other form of left-wing shamanism and exoteric teachings are indeed.
Universal healtcare is also not necesarly socialist. The US governmenr do its best for it people.

The US government is currently doing what it think is the best for it's people. I disagree that they're doing their best.

But along with the "anything socialist = bad" mentality another mentality came along with accompany it. The others mentality is "any thing even barely left wing = socialist"

I don't think that's the issue. Ever since Nixon, people starts losing faith in the federal government. Despite many advancements by the EPA and other government bureaucracies that are doing well, these idiots think the feds can't provide for an NHS.

I partly blame the media for overblowing federal incompetence when it occurs.

[Risottia]

I didn't know that Universal Healthcare killed the Constitution.

Death Panels, man.

Yeah, you can't trust the government with them. Much better to leave that to Death Panels, Inc & Associated Insurances.

[Socialist Czechia]

What is worse than not to have Universal Health Care is to have f*cked up health care.

Britain.

Nuff said.

Have people started dying in the streets in Britain because of fucked-up health care? I would have thought that would be on the news, even in the US.

No, people just dying in hospitals more, especially old ones in very surprising and horroric numbers.

Hospitals owned and controlled by the British state are so much f*cked up, that I would rather let hospital in Cambodia to cure me.

[Farnhamia]

Have people started dying in the streets in Britain because of fucked-up health care? I would have thought that would be on the news, even in the US.

No, people just dying in hospitals more, especially old ones in very surprising and horroric numbers.

Hospitals owned and controlled by the British state are so much f*cked up, that I would rather let hospital in Cambodia to cure me.

Is that so? You have sources for this, of course. I mean, old people do die, you know, and there are more old people these days than ever before, so more of them die every day than ever before.

[Norstal]

No, people just dying in hospitals more, especially old ones in very surprising and horroric numbers.

Hospitals owned and controlled by the British state are so much f*cked up, that I would rather let hospital in Cambodia to cure me.

Is that so? You have sources for this, of course. I mean, old people do die, you know, and there are more old people these days than ever before, so more of them die every day than ever before.

Daily Mail: "OLD PEOPLE DIE MORE THAN YOUNG PEOPLE."

[Scholmeria]

And I assume you are an American?

Yes. There are people here who think that healthcare here doesn't cost anything, so, I apologize in assuming you're one of those.

It is ok.

Yes, healthcare generally costs it is only the difference how they are paid. In non-US countries it is usually paid by taxes.

Also, I mentioned some negative aspects of Universal Healthcare in prebious posts. Like the doctors are easy to bribe.

[Hurdegaryp]

No, people just dying in hospitals more, especially old ones in very surprising and horroric numbers.

Hospitals owned and controlled by the British state are so much f*cked up, that I would rather let hospital in Cambodia to cure me.

Is that so? You have sources for this, of course. I mean, old people do die, you know, and there are more old people these days than ever before, so more of them die every day than ever before.

Yeah, but everybody loves a good horror story.

[Frazers]

No, people just dying in hospitals more, especially old ones in very surprising and horroric numbers.

Hospitals owned and controlled by the British state are so much f*cked up, that I would rather let hospital in Cambodia to cure me.

Is that so? You have sources for this, of course. I mean, old people do die, you know, and there are more old people these days than ever before, so more of them die every day than ever before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal

and the Keogh report that stemmed from it show some serious failings in the English NHS at the very least. Top that off with the disaster of the Liverpool Care Pathway and I think he's not far off.

[Pandeeria]

The US government is currently doing what it think is the best for it's people. I disagree that they're doing their best.

But along with the "anything socialist = bad" mentality another mentality came along with accompany it. The others mentality is "any thing even barely left wing = socialist"

I don't think that's the issue. Ever since Nixon, people starts losing faith in the federal government. Despite many advancements by the EPA and other government bureaucracies that are doing well, these idiots think the feds can't provide for an NHS.

I partly blame the media for overblowing federal incompetence when it occurs.

I blame the "Conservative Way = American Way" culture.
Also the Media also is at fault. Same with the actual Fed. Gov. for screwing up a couple times.

[Scholmeria]

The US government is currently doing what it think is the best for it's people. I disagree that they're doing their best.

But along with the "anything socialist = bad" mentality another mentality came along with accompany it. The others mentality is "any thing even barely left wing = socialist"

So, that is the reasony why there is no Socialdemocrtaic parties and politicans in the US?

Tell me, why are you so afraid of states intervention in economy and lifes of people?

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Millions of Soviet troops poured into Germany. Did those troops just disappear when the war ended?

No, they were demobbed to work in the fields and factories, as they absolutely needed to be.

Could the Soviet Union not have mustered those troops again?

Basically no. I don't know if you're up on the post-USSR investigations into the economic and demographic damage the war did (I'm just guessing you aren't), but the country was gutted, and its economy was reduced to a similar state to how it was in the early-mid 1930s.

But the core argument here was that the United States shouldn't have funded the Cold War and should have left the Soviet Union alone. This is based in the grounds that the Soviet Union was too weak from the war to take over Europe or become the dominant superpower. Well maybe so, but because of the war. The Soviet Union had to undergo a period of economic recovery. But so did the US. So did Europe.

The US came out of the Second World War better than unscathed, economically. There was no threat to any of its domestic infrastructure, and it profited from the first two years of the conflict without really getting involved.

The USSR on the other hand had its territory completely laid waste in its richest regions. You have to remember this is a country where in the thirties, just prior to the conflict, millions died due to grain shortages. It wasn't an evenly-developed economy (Russia still isn't, but that's maybe the nature of the place), and the "best" parts were fought over several times. Eastern Europe was often scorched twice or more times by the anti-Soviet locals, then the Soviet Union, and then the Nazis.

Western Europe was mostly somewhere in the middle, but the idea that the USSR and US came off anything like similarly is ridiculous.

In this alternate reality where the US refuses to fund a Cold War, there is no Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was crucial to rebuilding Western Europe. Without it the devastation of the war takes a massive toll on those countries.

The Marshall Plan or something like it was always going to be a thing, because it made the US a lot of money. The UK has only just paid back its Lend-Lease and Marshall Plan loans.

Without US military backing they can't defend themselves from the Soviet Union. Again the millions of Soviet soldiers at the end of WWII don't magically disappear, nor does the Soviet Union magically lose boys who will soon grow into combat worthy men. By 1959 the Soviets had over 4 million troops in the Soviet bloc. Western Europe can't match that.

On paper, yeah?, the USSR might have had millions of soldiers in 1945. That didn't necessarily mean that it was real strength they could reliably deploy where they needed it, or that they had anything left after that, in what amounted to a barrel-scraping exercise. You can only lose so many million people before there is nothing more.

So with a United States that remains isolated and no nuclear weapons, what prevents the Soviets from taking all of Europe? Ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist? That didn't work so well for the Axis before Pearl Harbor.

The USSR being completely broke and having no means to keep hold of these places prevented it. That's the truth of it.

The Axis was also not ignored before Pearl Harbour, except in the USA (and even then, not really). The Japanese got spanked by the USSR at the Khalkhin Gol, and the British mobilised just about everything they had to fight the Germans. Many of the people fighting in North Africa were Indians or ANZACs. They had Rhodies and South Africans flying for the RAF, and so on.

Just because the Benelux states, Scandinavia and France got taken over doesn't mean it was due to ignorance of the threat, it was a combination of ineptitude in places and a governmental unwillingness to unrealistically try to put up a fight against Germany in others.

[Farnhamia]

Is that so? You have sources for this, of course. I mean, old people do die, you know, and there are more old people these days than ever before, so more of them die every day than ever before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal

and the Keogh report that stemmed from it show some serious failings in the English NHS at the very least. Top that off with the disaster of the Liverpool Care Pathway and I think he's not far off.

One hospital scandal and a dubious treatment method for terminal patients (since phased out, by the way) doesn't mean the entire NHS is shit.

[Socialist Czechia]

No, people just dying in hospitals more, especially old ones in very surprising and horroric numbers.

Hospitals owned and controlled by the British state are so much f*cked up, that I would rather let hospital in Cambodia to cure me.

Is that so? You have sources for this, of course. I mean, old people do die, you know, and there are more old people these days than ever before, so more of them die every day than ever before.

That's known fact for a long time (for decades actually), but I guess some sources can't harm...
We can call it "public secret".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9591814/Patients-starve-and-die-of-thirst-on-hospital-wards.html

News like this are very usual in UK.
But there you have some serious research with cold numbers.

https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/resources/national-care-dying-audit-hospitals

National Care of the Dying Audit of Hospitals: executive summary, national report and hospital results.

[Pandeeria]

The US government is currently doing what it think is the best for it's people. I disagree that they're doing their best.

But along with the "anything socialist = bad" mentality another mentality came along with accompany it. The others mentality is "any thing even barely left wing = socialist"

So, that is the reasony why there is no Socialdemocrtaic parties and politicans in the US?

Tell me, why are you so afraid of states intervention in economy and lifes of people?

Because of the shitty cultural mentalities:

"Any form of Socialism = Bad"
"Anything even left-wing = Socialist"
"Conservative Way = American Way"

Our politically garbage culture has effectively dismissed the Left-Wing as "bad" and "un-American."

[Atheist Heathens]

Is that so? You have sources for this, of course. I mean, old people do die, you know, and there are more old people these days than ever before, so more of them die every day than ever before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal

and the Keogh report that stemmed from it show some serious failings in the English NHS at the very least. Top that off with the disaster of the Liverpool Care Pathway and I think he's not far off.

Not to derail the thread or anything but he is still rather far off what with Cambodia being ranked 174th out of 191 WHO member nations; the UK was ranked 18th. The NHS is by no means perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than Cambodia's health system.

[Farnhamia]

Is that so? You have sources for this, of course. I mean, old people do die, you know, and there are more old people these days than ever before, so more of them die every day than ever before.

That's known fact for a long time (for decades actually), but I guess some sources can't harm...
We can call it "public secret".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9591814/Patients-starve-and-die-of-thirst-on-hospital-wards.html

News like this are very usual in UK.
But there you have some serious research with cold numbers.

https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/resources/national-care-dying-audit-hospitals

National Care of the Dying Audit of Hospitals: executive summary, national report and hospital results.

"Known fact for a long time" is generally taken to mean, "I'm making this up." What you provide is disturbing but as I replied to the other person above, I don't see how it invalidates the entire NHS system. The RCP study has to do with terminal patients, not everyone, thought the other article does speak of one 22-year-old.

[Viritica]

o cool m8

[Farnhamia]

o cool m8

Really? Spam? Come on.

[Viritica]

o cool m8

Really? Spam? Come on.

What? I find it interesting. We could of used this system.

[Socialist Czechia]

"Known fact for a long time" is generally taken to mean, "I'm making this up." What you provide is disturbing but as I replied to the other person above, I don't see how it invalidates the entire NHS system. The RCP study has to do with terminal patients, not everyone, thought the other article does speak of one 22-year-old.

It's known fact from 1940s since British government nationalized hospitals, if you want me to be precise.

Should I find another relevant studies, or you have answer for everything already?
Just to know if I should actually bother, in case your mind is really opened for new informations to reconsider your opinion.

[Farnhamia]

"Known fact for a long time" is generally taken to mean, "I'm making this up." What you provide is disturbing but as I replied to the other person above, I don't see how it invalidates the entire NHS system. The RCP study has to do with terminal patients, not everyone, thought the other article does speak of one 22-year-old.

It's known fact from 1940s since British government nationalized hospitals, if you want me to be precise.

Should I find another relevant studies, or you have answer for everything already?
Just to know if I should actually bother, in case your mind is really opened for new informations to reconsider your opinion.

Source away, if you want. I still don't see how these problems - and they are problems - are serious enough that the NHS should be scrapped. What would you replace it with? The US system of private health care that's tied to your job, with government-provided care only after you reach 65? And you haven't said anything about the millions of people who've been treated by the NHS since the 1940s with no problems at all.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

It's known fact from 1940s since British government nationalized hospitals, if you want me to be precise.

No, it didn't, and a big part of the problems inside the NHS probably come from the fact that hospitals can be run in a variety of ways that don't really compare while still being inside the NHS system. There are private trusts, charities, and the NHS' own hospitals all working inside the system. Most GP's surgeries and afaik pretty much all pharmacies are private businesses which are subsidised by the NHS.

[Socialist Czechia]

It's known fact from 1940s since British government nationalized hospitals, if you want me to be precise.

Should I find another relevant studies, or you have answer for everything already?
Just to know if I should actually bother, in case your mind is really opened for new informations to reconsider your opinion.

Source away, if you want. I still don't see how these problems - and they are problems - are serious enough that the NHS should be scrapped. What would you replace it with? The US system of private health care that's tied to your job, with government-provided care only after you reach 65? And you haven't said anything about the millions of people who've been treated by the NHS since the 1940s with no problems at all.

I didn't say NHS should be scrapped. I am saying, that NHS in Britain today is completely f*cked up and whole system needs massive purge from both useless surgeons and too bureaucrats.

I am from ex-socialist country with still massive public health care, so I know a thing or two how universal health care looks.
Too many 'Muricans around, I understand

I used British NHS simply as an example, that universal health care can end in horrific, inefficient and corrupted form.

[Atheist Heathens]

It's known fact from 1940s since British government nationalized hospitals, if you want me to be precise.

Should I find another relevant studies, or you have answer for everything already?
Just to know if I should actually bother, in case your mind is really opened for new informations to reconsider your opinion.

Source away, if you want. I still don't see how these problems - and they are problems - are serious enough that the NHS should be scrapped. What would you replace it with? The US system of private health care that's tied to your job, with government-provided care only after you reach 65? And you haven't said anything about the millions of people who've been treated by the NHS since the 1940s with no problems at all.

Everyone knows that if even a single thing goes wrong once in a government led system, that system should be dismantled regardless of how many millions of other times it may have been successful. It's like how the roughly 1% of total British benefit spending lost to fraud and error, means we should gut our entire welfare system.

[The Emerald Dragon]

So, you dont pay healthcare by taxes? And thoose private insurance companies are making profite from the sick people, right?

it is a little bit socialism, but it does not mean that it is necesarly negative.

The mentality in America is that "anything socialist = bad."

God it's a shame we developed that mentality.

I know, the Daily Mail's full of...

"The evil Communist Obama is buddybuddy with North Korea"