Thanks a million, JoxerTheDeityPirate, especially for providing the U.K perspective!!!
Really thanks, I loved to know your thoughts. And I didn't know the British were that fed-up with the way the war has been handled!
MasterHistoryGirl, Music Man (hey, where are you, you are knowledgeable on economics and politics!), Charlie Brown, I'd love to know your thoughts about that quote, well, I'd love to see you guys debating, it'd be nice, it has already been wonderfully informative, but it can be more!
JoxerTheDeityPirate, MHG touched on the issue of health care. When time allows, and if you feel like doing so, would you be so kind as to sketch out, in some lines, nothing really detailed, NOO!!!! (I like you guys lol), how's the U.K health care system like - all private, all public, mix, so on? And, the most important, are you satisfied with it?
Because programs here seem to be sound if you read the laws, but in reality they are very inefficient.
Thank you all!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
First of all, I am quite pleased to have found such an in-depth discussion on an important aspect of our lives (regardless of what nation you live in). My knowledge on today's politics is quite limited, but what I do know is important. When writing the U.S. Constitution, the founding fathers did not want a political system (Ex. Republicans v.s. Democrats, Federalists v.s. Anti-Federalists). By putting labels on candadites, they were probably afraid that America would become too divided and unable to think for themselves. Believe it or not, there are too many people in America that don't think for themselves and feel safe under a label in which they can feel a part of something important--the truth is, however, is that both sides have kept the same values for years upon years and have not really changed their values in order to supplement with the times. In fact, and this might go a little too far, I'm afraid that by continuing these political parties, as it's a tradition now, we will only lead ourselves into possible violent and turbulent outcomes. I don't know to what degree, but I wouldn't doubt it if there is bloodshed in the future. Call me out on it if you will, but they are my feelings at the moment (and I realize I have MUCH to learn).
Thus far, I refuse to label myself, although I support values on both sides. My grandfather was a die-hard Republican, and my other was a Democrat. My parents are Republicans, my girlfriend might be a Democrat (although she is still undecided), and I'm even a part of an organization (known as Phi Theta Kappa), who in one aspect strongly supports the Green party. It's absolutely crazy. Stop the world, I want to get off! There are too many different flavors out there (meaning parties), how do we choose?
I dislike parties, obviously. But I know it's practically impossible to avoid in a democracy.
Thus far, I refuse to label myself, although I support values on both sides. My grandfather was a die-hard Republican, and my other was a Democrat. My parents are Republicans, my girlfriend might be a Democrat (although she is still undecided), and I'm even a part of an organization (known as Phi Theta Kappa), who in one aspect strongly supports the Green party. It's absolutely crazy. Stop the world, I want to get off! There are too many different flavors out there (meaning parties), how do we choose?
I dislike parties, obviously. But I know it's practically impossible to avoid in a democracy.
Yara
we in the UK have both public and private health care.
the NHS [national health service] was formed just after WW2 and is THE public health service.however,its been in decline for many years due to a lack of government funding and if the Conservative party had their way would be phased out [theyve been opposed to it since the formation of the NHS in the 1940's].
when the NHS works,it works well,free health care for those that can not afford to go private must be a good thing,however there are not enough trained nurses/doctors working in the NHS [due to poor training,long work hours and poor pay] so the drawback is that one can wait months,even years,to see a hospital specialist and get the right treatment.
the NHS hospitals are run down because of the lack of government funding but before anyone blames Labour for this i must point out that although the current government are inept the 'tory' government of 18 years before them went out of their way to not fund the NHS to the capacity it needed therefore making the job of keeping the NHS 'on its game' a far more difficult job than it should of been.
Joxer
we in the UK have both public and private health care.
the NHS [national health service] was formed just after WW2 and is THE public health service.however,its been in decline for many years due to a lack of government funding and if the Conservative party had their way would be phased out [theyve been opposed to it since the formation of the NHS in the 1940's].
when the NHS works,it works well,free health care for those that can not afford to go private must be a good thing,however there are not enough trained nurses/doctors working in the NHS [due to poor training,long work hours and poor pay] so the drawback is that one can wait months,even years,to see a hospital specialist and get the right treatment.
the NHS hospitals are run down because of the lack of government funding but before anyone blames Labour for this i must point out that although the current government are inept the 'tory' government of 18 years before them went out of their way to not fund the NHS to the capacity it needed therefore making the job of keeping the NHS 'on its game' a far more difficult job than it should of been.
Joxer
Hi, Joxer!
Thank you so much for the reply! Great input, I learned quite a good deal. It's interesting because the system is similar to the one here in Brazil. Here there are private health insurance companies alongside the government national health program (here called SUS). It's our "NHS", so to speak.
What's most striking is the similarity: just like what you described about U.K, here in Brazil our equivalent to the NHS has also been neglected and underfunded throughout the years by both sides of the political spectrum.
So, it's interesting. There's a chronic lack of funding to the Publich Health Care System and, above all, there's a whole lot of mishandling of the public resources earmarked for it!
Not a good scenario!
THANKS, huge thanks for the answer and the input!
PS: Underqualified personnel is also a problem here in both public and private sectors, by the way. Though the situation is not calamitous, and there are a lot of good professionals, there has been a decrease in quality of the medical personnel generally. And sadly!
Thank you so much for the reply! Great input, I learned quite a good deal. It's interesting because the system is similar to the one here in Brazil. Here there are private health insurance companies alongside the government national health program (here called SUS). It's our "NHS", so to speak.
What's most striking is the similarity: just like what you described about U.K, here in Brazil our equivalent to the NHS has also been neglected and underfunded throughout the years by both sides of the political spectrum.
So, it's interesting. There's a chronic lack of funding to the Publich Health Care System and, above all, there's a whole lot of mishandling of the public resources earmarked for it!
Not a good scenario!
THANKS, huge thanks for the answer and the input!
PS: Underqualified personnel is also a problem here in both public and private sectors, by the way. Though the situation is not calamitous, and there are a lot of good professionals, there has been a decrease in quality of the medical personnel generally. And sadly!
I'm in the process of moving home, but I'll reply as soon as I can.
Hey...I'm royalty!! :-D
Hey...I'm royalty!! :-D
OK....now that I think I've gotten a temporary internet source worked out (my parent's don't have anything but dial up at their house and I've been working on getting high speed so I can still work) I think I can answer you Yara...or at least address the issues. What we could really use is MusicMan...he's the financial whiz. My knowledge of the US budgetary process is very limited.
Medicaid vs. Medicare: Medicare is part of the Social Security Act. It was created in the 1960's (I believe it was Lyndon B. Johnson) because it was discovered that health care was getting to be too expensive for seniors who lived on Social Security. So he created the Medicare program to provide health insurance to elderly people and those who qualify to be on Social Security, so that Social Security checks aren't being used for medical care and leaving no other money for food or any other bills. Medicaid is a program for everyone else who simply cannot afford health insurance but who aren't on Social Security. You have to qualify for it via income (your income has to be under a certain set amount) and there is only a limited amount of procedures and prescriptions they will pay for. For example, they usually pay only for the generic versions of drugs, not the name brands and you cannot get elective procedures covered; only those that are medically necessary. The problem with these systems, of course, lays in their definitions of what is medically necessary and what isn't; some surgeries that are considered "elective" are in some cases medically necessary, but Medicare or Medicaid would likely not pay for them (at least not without tons of other appointments you'd have to pay for out of pocket to back up the fact that it was medically necessary). Prescriptions are also a problem; sometimes the generic formulas of medications make people sick, and they need to be on a name brand. Other times a person cannot take one brand of a class of drugs (for example, high blood pressure drugs) for some reason; they need another drug. But the drug they need won't be covered by Medicaid or Medicare because it's more expensive than another kind.
As far as expenditures by the government goes...that's difficult to tell really. We have the figures that you pointed out about how much the government spends on military vs. health care, but really those numbers aren't exactly accurate for the military. The Department of Defense has an entire "Black Budget" that they get to spend on whatever they want, and they don't have to report the amounts to anyone because it might compromise security. We have no idea how much money is in that Black Budget or where it goes. So the amount on military expenditures is potentially much larger because of the Black Budget. I really can't say much else about the US budget...it's not my area of knowledge at all. MusicMan could tell you more. But as far as I can see, those numbers are likely accurate (with the exception of the Black Budget)
Medicaid vs. Medicare: Medicare is part of the Social Security Act. It was created in the 1960's (I believe it was Lyndon B. Johnson) because it was discovered that health care was getting to be too expensive for seniors who lived on Social Security. So he created the Medicare program to provide health insurance to elderly people and those who qualify to be on Social Security, so that Social Security checks aren't being used for medical care and leaving no other money for food or any other bills. Medicaid is a program for everyone else who simply cannot afford health insurance but who aren't on Social Security. You have to qualify for it via income (your income has to be under a certain set amount) and there is only a limited amount of procedures and prescriptions they will pay for. For example, they usually pay only for the generic versions of drugs, not the name brands and you cannot get elective procedures covered; only those that are medically necessary. The problem with these systems, of course, lays in their definitions of what is medically necessary and what isn't; some surgeries that are considered "elective" are in some cases medically necessary, but Medicare or Medicaid would likely not pay for them (at least not without tons of other appointments you'd have to pay for out of pocket to back up the fact that it was medically necessary). Prescriptions are also a problem; sometimes the generic formulas of medications make people sick, and they need to be on a name brand. Other times a person cannot take one brand of a class of drugs (for example, high blood pressure drugs) for some reason; they need another drug. But the drug they need won't be covered by Medicaid or Medicare because it's more expensive than another kind.
As far as expenditures by the government goes...that's difficult to tell really. We have the figures that you pointed out about how much the government spends on military vs. health care, but really those numbers aren't exactly accurate for the military. The Department of Defense has an entire "Black Budget" that they get to spend on whatever they want, and they don't have to report the amounts to anyone because it might compromise security. We have no idea how much money is in that Black Budget or where it goes. So the amount on military expenditures is potentially much larger because of the Black Budget. I really can't say much else about the US budget...it's not my area of knowledge at all. MusicMan could tell you more. But as far as I can see, those numbers are likely accurate (with the exception of the Black Budget)
Don't I love this website? I do! Thanks a million, MasterHistoryGirl. Such a thoughtful and kind person is not easy to find anywhere, here or outside "in the real world".
Thanks a million. It's, by the way, the first time I get a decent explanation about the U.S health care programs, and there are authors who, instead of informing and educating, play politics and talk about it all without telling us what the programs really are.
THANK YOU! You're great.
Yes, Music Man input would be very welcomed because it could shed some light on the links between the war costs and the health care crisis.
By the way, I like to understand things, I don't like playing politics. I'm not even arguing about whether going to war is right or wrong, I like knowing other people's countries, culture, problems, issues and so on. And it turns out that there are similarities between us and we can relate to each other because sometimes we have the same issues or problems. Like Joxer was saying about the U.K, it's very similar to what happens here, though in a different degree, I guess.
It's great, I love this website, I like you guys, you're great.
Thanks a million!
Thanks a million. It's, by the way, the first time I get a decent explanation about the U.S health care programs, and there are authors who, instead of informing and educating, play politics and talk about it all without telling us what the programs really are.
THANK YOU! You're great.
Yes, Music Man input would be very welcomed because it could shed some light on the links between the war costs and the health care crisis.
By the way, I like to understand things, I don't like playing politics. I'm not even arguing about whether going to war is right or wrong, I like knowing other people's countries, culture, problems, issues and so on. And it turns out that there are similarities between us and we can relate to each other because sometimes we have the same issues or problems. Like Joxer was saying about the U.K, it's very similar to what happens here, though in a different degree, I guess.
It's great, I love this website, I like you guys, you're great.
Thanks a million!
< Stephen Colbert's "The Word" mode >
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The "left wing academic" is more of a stereotype in America ... Those who use the term in a negative sense to others assume that all academics are raving socialists at best and communists at worst ... I resent being labeled as something because of something silly like my academic background.[/QUOTE]
Left-wing academics... claiming it's possible to be "informed", and not be a communist.
[QUOTE]The Republicans (John McCain being the representative of this group as the presumptive nominee) are fiscal conservatives; they want the government to be as small as possible and spend very little money on anything except the bare necessities.[/QUOTE]
Including the trillions of dollars that must be spent on the war.
[QUOTE]The problem with this system is that it is expensive; government costs would skyrocket, and they are already astronomical[/QUOTE]
Unless Obama's foreign policy would adhere to UN policies and international law.
< / Colbert mode >
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH
wrote: [/QUOTENAME]< Stephen Colbert's "The Word" mode > [QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The "left wing academic" is more of a stereotype in America ... Those who use the term in a negative sense to others assume that all academics are raving socialists at best and communists at worst ... I resent being labeled as something because of something silly like my academic background.[/QUOTE] Left-wing academics... claiming it's possible to be "informed", and not be a communist. [QUOTE]The Republicans (John McCain being the representative of this group as the presumptive nominee) are fiscal conservatives; they want the government to be as small as possible and spend very little money on anything except the bare necessities.[/QUOTE] Including the trillions of dollars that must be spent on the war. [QUOTE]The problem with this system is that it is expensive; government costs would skyrocket, and they are already astronomical[/QUOTE] Unless Obama's foreign policy would adhere to UN policies and international law. < / Colbert mode > [/QUOTE] *laughes* If I didn't know you so well, Sir GH, I'd be forced to beat you for that. But I do, and as I'm also a Stephen Colbert fan I can laugh in appreciation :-) Besides...I was right. The Stanley Cup IS coming back to the US (and most likely to my beloved Red Wings!) I told you that you guys would be forced to give it back this year :-P
wrote: [/QUOTENAME]< Stephen Colbert's "The Word" mode > [QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The "left wing academic" is more of a stereotype in America ... Those who use the term in a negative sense to others assume that all academics are raving socialists at best and communists at worst ... I resent being labeled as something because of something silly like my academic background.[/QUOTE] Left-wing academics... claiming it's possible to be "informed", and not be a communist. [QUOTE]The Republicans (John McCain being the representative of this group as the presumptive nominee) are fiscal conservatives; they want the government to be as small as possible and spend very little money on anything except the bare necessities.[/QUOTE] Including the trillions of dollars that must be spent on the war. [QUOTE]The problem with this system is that it is expensive; government costs would skyrocket, and they are already astronomical[/QUOTE] Unless Obama's foreign policy would adhere to UN policies and international law. < / Colbert mode > [/QUOTE] *laughes* If I didn't know you so well, Sir GH, I'd be forced to beat you for that. But I do, and as I'm also a Stephen Colbert fan I can laugh in appreciation :-) Besides...I was right. The Stanley Cup IS coming back to the US (and most likely to my beloved Red Wings!) I told you that you guys would be forced to give it back this year :-P
Hahaha. "The Word" is my favorite segment in his show, it's really funny. And the "interviews" too, I get amazed by how fast he can come up with jokes and witty answers when he's interviewing a guest, and you can see he's improvising because he ultimately can't control what the person will say once she/he is there!
And doing all that in front of the cameras and so on, and gettting to be charming and funny at the same time, but never vulgar, that's a talent, a huge talent.
I wished they sill broadcast his show here. :-((
And doing all that in front of the cameras and so on, and gettting to be charming and funny at the same time, but never vulgar, that's a talent, a huge talent.
I wished they sill broadcast his show here. :-((