NationStates

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Farnhamia wrote: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.

Please do not say "Muricans" when addressing me. I find it offensive. So you think single-payer (universal) health care is okay, just that the British version has gotten bloated and inefficient? You could have said that to begin with. Inefficiency is a danger with any large government program. Still, the point was that the NHS has not caused the British economy to implode or explode or disintegrate, which is what we Americans are told all the time by the opponents of Obamacare and universal health care.

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Farnhamia wrote: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.

You might want to use a better example in future, as the World Health Organisation has consistently ranked the NHS as one of the best healthcare systems in the world thus slightly undermining your point. Also on a per capita expenditure basis the NHS is actually one of the more efficient healthcare systems, far outstripping the USA in this regard. In need of reform? Yes. Horrific, inefficient, and corrupted? Not really, no.

The Emerald Dragon wrote:

Pandeeria wrote:
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"

Or how Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney is our freedom fighters against evil Socialism.

Atheist Heathens wrote:
You might want to use a better example in future, as the World Health Organisation has consistently ranked the NHS as one of the best healthcare systems in the world thus slightly undermining your point. Also on a per capita expenditure basis the NHS is actually one of the more efficient healthcare systems, far outstripping the USA in this regard. In need of reform? Yes. Horrific, inefficient, and corrupted? Not really, no.

And I can find independent studies which proves NHS's highly questionable structure.

Any state's government can be magician with numbers, like Greece.

Go there, look around in real hospitals, ask real people.
I went there, I looked, I asked. Many times.

Allet Klar Chefs wrote:

The Sotoan Union wrote: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.

The Soviet Union experienced rapid industrial growth after WWII. Reparations and manufacturing infrastructure taken from eastern bloc nations caused the Societ economy to experience a rapid boom.

http://countrystudies.us/russia/12.htm

But this boom was based on a policy of fast industrialization. The Soviet Union thanks to the mobilization of natural resources due to WWII and a policy of industrialization heightened by WWII experienced a massive increase in manufacturing capability. This did lead to a fall in the production of consumer goods but more than enough manufacturing goods, in fact a surplus.

http://www.centrosraffa.org/public/bb6b ... f7e792.pdf

Agricultural production fell across the Soviet Union as the nation no longer focused on agricultural jobs. Agricultural production fell in all of the Soviet republics, and farmers were not desperately needed to support a post war economy.

http://www.xxiamzius.lt/archyvas/xxiamz ... ab_01.html

Sorry about that requiring translation.

But if the Soviet Union could muster millions of soldiers in the 1950's in spite of your claim that the male population was decimated, then I don't see why the soldiers serving at the end of the war exist "only on paper." They sure as hell weren't scraping the barrel to meet war requirements by the end of WWII. If anything they only needed to do this during the height of the Nazi invasion, and had recovered greatly by the end of the war. This was fueled by desperate policies of mobilization, policies that were not stable in the long run. But again repetitions from satellite states and resources taken from them helped transition these industrial measures form desperate war time policies to rapid industrialization policies that lasted well into the Cold War. If anything it helped the Soviets complete the transition from an agricultural society.

But again the Marshall Plan can't happen in this post war US. You can't have an isolationist US that still provides aid to Western Europe, the Marshall Plan was a large part of early Cold War policy. In this alternate universe where there is no US aid, and no US military funding or support, and no US trade agreements, Europe is dominated by the Soviets. Maybe they can't literally conquer Europe, but they are in a much better position to recover.

You seem to think that because of the losses the Soviet Union took on WWII, that the rise of the Soviet Union as a world power prior after WWII don't real. Surely the Berlin Blockade and the ruthless crushing of the Hungarian revolt were fake. Surely the Soviet Union was on the brink of losing Eastern Europe the whole time, and everything about them the US feared was fake.

Ifreann wrote:

The Sotoan Union wrote:People like paying taxes if the money goes to people like them. They complain if it doesn't.

http://www.demos.org/blog/1/21/14/will- ... -democracy

People always complain about taxes.

But it would have imploded within 20 years given the KKK activity in the South given that article if it came to fruition in 1945.

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Atheist Heathens wrote:
You might want to use a better example in future, as the World Health Organisation has consistently ranked the NHS as one of the best healthcare systems in the world thus slightly undermining your point. Also on a per capita expenditure basis the NHS is actually one of the more efficient healthcare systems, far outstripping the USA in this regard. In need of reform? Yes. Horrific, inefficient, and corrupted? Not really, no.

And I can find independent studies which proves NHS's highly questionable structure.

Any state's government can be magician with numbers, like Greece.

Go there, look around in real hospitals, ask real people.
I went there, I looked, I asked. Many times.

It maybe be the truth that the numbers are legit and the citizens are still dissatisfied. But that means even the best healthcare systems are woefully bureaucratic, sluggish, or in the US, costly. There's always a price for something.

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Atheist Heathens wrote:
You might want to use a better example in future, as the World Health Organisation has consistently ranked the NHS as one of the best healthcare systems in the world thus slightly undermining your point. Also on a per capita expenditure basis the NHS is actually one of the more efficient healthcare systems, far outstripping the USA in this regard. In need of reform? Yes. Horrific, inefficient, and corrupted? Not really, no.

Any state's government can be magician with numbers, like Greece.

Go there, look around in real hospitals, ask real people.
I went there, I looked, I asked. Many times.

Yeah remind me when did the World Health Organisation became a state's government, rather than an agency of the UN? You may have looked in real hospitals and asked real people, I don't know, but either way your anecdotal evidence doesn't actually prove anything. Feel free to find these "independent studies".

Just interesting piece of medical history, lobotomy was banned in Soviet Union and it's satellite states already in 1950, while 'Murican surgeons kept doing it to 1970s, and even later government's report didn't condemn this crime against humanity.

The USSR officially banned the procedure in 1950[138] on the initiative of Gilyarovsky.[139] Doctors in the Soviet Union concluded that the procedure was "contrary to the principles of humanity" and "'through lobotomy' an insane person is changed into an idiot.

In 1977 the US Congress created the National Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to investigate allegations that psychosurgery—including lobotomy techniques—were used to control minorities and restrain individual rights. It also investigated the after-effects of surgery. The committee concluded that some extremely limited and properly performed psychosurgery could have positive effects.

Developed health care apparently doesn't mean only that you have best technology on Earth.

Atheist Heathens wrote:

Socialist Czechia wrote:
Any state's government can be magician with numbers, like Greece.

Go there, look around in real hospitals, ask real people.
I went there, I looked, I asked. Many times.

Yeah remind me when did the World Health Organisation became a state's government, rather than an agency of the UN? You may have looked in real hospitals and asked real people, I don't know, but either way your anecdotal evidence doesn't actually prove anything. Feel free to find these "independent studies".

And the independent studies are good, but may not explain that the citizens are not pleased with it's sluggishness in some cases thus creating horror stories that otherwise mar a decent system that is still in need of improvement despite the WHO considering it one of the best. Stagnation is the road to mediocrity and a system resting on it's laurels will just become like the US (ranked 37th by the WHO).

Atheist Heathens wrote:
Yeah remind me when did the World Health Organisation became a state's government, rather than an agency of the UN? You may have looked in real hospitals and asked real people, I don't know, but either way your anecdotal evidence doesn't actually prove anything. Feel free to find these "independent studies".

Let me ask you a question: Do you think WHO would highly criticize western, powerful and so called "democratic" country for bad health care? They rather take their own numbers, which seems legit.

It reminds me one funny flame war, why no American or British general ever was never put before International court for War crimes or crimes against humanity. No one could answer me without insults.

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Atheist Heathens wrote:
Yeah remind me when did the World Health Organisation became a state's government, rather than an agency of the UN? You may have looked in real hospitals and asked real people, I don't know, but either way your anecdotal evidence doesn't actually prove anything. Feel free to find these "independent studies".

Let me ask you a question: Do you think WHO would highly criticize western, powerful and so called "democratic" country for bad health care? They rather take their own numbers, which seems legit.

It reminds me one funny flame war, why no American or British general ever was never put before International court for War crimes or crimes against humanity. No one could answer me without insults.

I find it interesting that you're quick to dismiss studies that do not agree with your view of the NHS, you who wondered if my mind was "really opened for new informations to reconsider your opinion."

Socialist Czechia wrote:Just interesting piece of medical history, lobotomy was banned in Soviet Union and it's satellite states already in 1950, while 'Murican surgeons kept doing it to 1970s, and even later government's report didn't condemn this crime against humanity.

The USSR officially banned the procedure in 1950[138] on the initiative of Gilyarovsky.[139] Doctors in the Soviet Union concluded that the procedure was "contrary to the principles of humanity" and "'through lobotomy' an insane person is changed into an idiot.

In 1977 the US Congress created the National Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to investigate allegations that psychosurgery—including lobotomy techniques—were used to control minorities and restrain individual rights. It also investigated the after-effects of surgery. The committee concluded that some extremely limited and properly performed psychosurgery could have positive effects.

Developed health care apparently doesn't mean only that you have best technology on Earth.

Not to mention Russian life expectancies never reached the level of the US during the Cold War.

These democratic, capitalist nations are now turning more and more socialist and yet they still say that they are a democratic capitalism society.

The Serbian Empire wrote:

Socialist Czechia wrote:Just interesting piece of medical history, lobotomy was banned in Soviet Union and it's satellite states already in 1950, while 'Murican surgeons kept doing it to 1970s, and even later government's report didn't condemn this crime against humanity.

The USSR officially banned the procedure in 1950[138] on the initiative of Gilyarovsky.[139] Doctors in the Soviet Union concluded that the procedure was "contrary to the principles of humanity" and "'through lobotomy' an insane person is changed into an idiot.

In 1977 the US Congress created the National Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to investigate allegations that psychosurgery—including lobotomy techniques—were used to control minorities and restrain individual rights. It also investigated the after-effects of surgery. The committee concluded that some extremely limited and properly performed psychosurgery could have positive effects.

Developed health care apparently doesn't mean only that you have best technology on Earth.

Not to mention Russian life expectancies never reached the level of the US during the Cold War.

Yes it did. It surpassed the US in the 1960's.

Farnhamia wrote:

Socialist Czechia wrote:
Let me ask you a question: Do you think WHO would highly criticize western, powerful and so called "democratic" country for bad health care? They rather take their own numbers, which seems legit.

It reminds me one funny flame war, why no American or British general ever was never put before International court for War crimes or crimes against humanity. No one could answer me without insults.

I find it interesting that you're quick to dismiss studies that do not agree with your view of the NHS, you who wondered if my mind was "really opened for new informations to reconsider your opinion."

In the end, when you have some personal experience as much as read opposite studies, you must choose which view is generally more legit.

So in short, without bitching around:

NHS today sucks.

Opinion based on my own eyes, another people's experience which I heard personally and opposite researches of course.

Satisfied?

The Sotoan Union wrote:

The Serbian Empire wrote:Not to mention Russian life expectancies never reached the level of the US during the Cold War.

Yes it did. It surpassed the US in the 1960's.

And then it came crashing down once the USSR fell apart. That's the problem with the US and this system. No country can't support both being a military superpower and having a universal health care system. The USSR is proof that it's one or the other.

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Atheist Heathens wrote:
Yeah remind me when did the World Health Organisation became a state's government, rather than an agency of the UN? You may have looked in real hospitals and asked real people, I don't know, but either way your anecdotal evidence doesn't actually prove anything. Feel free to find these "independent studies".

Let me ask you a question: Do you think WHO would highly criticize western, powerful and so called "democratic" country for bad health care? They rather take their own numbers, which seems legit.

It reminds me one funny flame war, why no American or British general ever was never put before International court for War crimes or crimes against humanity. No one could answer me without insults.

one google search later

If you can't be bothered to follow the link it's a news article on a WHO report that criticises the government's dealings with fast food companies in promoting healthy eating. That took me literally 10 seconds to find, so no I don't think the WHO is somehow cowed into submission.

The Sotoan Union wrote:

The Serbian Empire wrote:Not to mention Russian life expectancies never reached the level of the US during the Cold War.

Yes it did. It surpassed the US in the 1960's.

If it did, it's fallen back because a WHO study in 2013 put the US (79.8 ) at 35th on the list and Russia (70) at 124th.

Pandeeria wrote:

Scholmeria wrote: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.

Well, I don't mind. I mean, socialism really doesn't work so...

Farnhamia wrote:

The Sotoan Union wrote:Yes it did. It surpassed the US in the 1960's.

If it did, it's fallen back because a WHO study in 2013 put the US (79.8 ) at 35th on the list and Russia (70) at 124th.

And that say something. Only the NATO members that jumped off the USSR (Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia) are anywhere near the US in life expectancy.

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:I find it interesting that you're quick to dismiss studies that do not agree with your view of the NHS, you who wondered if my mind was "really opened for new informations to reconsider your opinion."

In the end, when you have some personal experience as much as read opposite studies, you must choose which view is generally more legit.

So in short, without bitching around:

NHS today sucks.

Opinion based on my own eyes, another people's experience which I heard personally and opposite researches of course.

Satisfied?

You'll forgive me if I trust the studies more than your personal opinion.

Farnhamia wrote:

The Sotoan Union wrote:Yes it did. It surpassed the US in the 1960's.

If it did, it's fallen back because a WHO study in 2013 put the US (79.8 ) at 35th on the list and Russia (70) at 124th.

Don't you think a big important event happened in Russia between 1960 and 2013?

The Sotoan Union wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:If it did, it's fallen back because a WHO study in 2013 put the US (79.8 ) at 35th on the list and Russia (70) at 124th.

Don't you think a big important event happened in Russia between 1960 and 2013?

All the Ukranian, Tajik, Kazakh, Armenian, Azerbaijani and Uzbek doctors and nurses went home?

The Serbian Empire wrote:

The Sotoan Union wrote:Yes it did. It surpassed the US in the 1960's.

And then it came crashing down once the USSR fell apart. That's the problem with the US and this system. No country can't support both being a military superpower and a universal health care system. The USSR is proof that it's one or the other.

USSR fell due to collapse of it's inner market, since too much industry was focused on something else than day-to-day needs of it's people.
It was Party's fault that they accepted Reagan's game with so much devotion, which surprised even Americans themselves. They expected five or ten years more, at least.

Not any profit from military technologies sold to private sector. That was a massive problem.
Often best technological stuff on whole Earth but with just military and top secret use, that was USSR's economic suicide.