President Obama

[401Kill]

From what I've read, much of the debate on green policy seems to assume that the primary effect of going green is to reduce CO2 emissions. While that is certainly important, I would argue that there is another, equally important consideration:

Oil is finite.

Therefore, going green is the only viable long-term solution, because at some point we will run out of oil regardless of its impact (or lack of) on the environment - and if we have continued business as usual rather than migrating to renewable alternatives, we will be quite unprepared.

Considering the number of highly important products (many life saving drugs, fertilizers, etc for example) which are made from various fractions of oil, continuing to burn it in cars, trains, power stations etc when these can be powered by alternative means is not a good plan.

By moving away from oil wherever possible and replacing with renewable technologies, not only do we mitigate any impact of emissions on the environment (not only climate change, but also things like acid rain and smog), but we also retain maximum quantities of oil for areas where it is not so easily removed from the equation.

In order to research, develop, build and improve renewable technologies on a scale to rival the current oil industry, many jobs would need to be created. Increasing employment and circulation of money would help the economy.

We need governments who can consider the long-term implications of high dependency on finite resources and the probable effects on our environment, rather than the short-term interests of the oil industry.

That's my take anyway :)

[Andrew]

Anyone have comments on Obamacare and death panels? The republicans are going super retard about it. They have their folowers at town hall meetings getting in shouting matches, and they don't seem to know what they are arguing for. Government control on healthcare? As far as I know the government is just going to become a seller of insurance. Insurance companies won't like this. Government already offers medicaid for lowest income, and they provide good healthcare for anyone in military.

And we all know how terrible government run healthcare is outside of USA... ::)

Sarah Palin is against death panels (which is stated no where in the bill), even though she had death panels when she was governor.

And the protesters are bringing guns to the events.

Outside the event where President Obama will conduct his town hall, there is an anti-Obama protestor with a gun -- a pistol strapped to his lower leg.

Interesting. Legally he is allowed to do this, and Obama will be visiting.

Then there is the guy who is against government medical care, and yet he had no insurance, and attacked some people to get in the news.

The anti-reform guy who got in a fight at the townhall protest the other night needs help paying his doctor bills because he got laid off and has no insurance.

Full of fail. He is against something that would help him specifically.

[chatfsh]

I really haven

[Edric O]

The question is, what exactly do you mean by "socialized medicine" or "nationalized healthcare"? You linked to a poll that seemed to be asking about a single-payer health system, which is not what Obama is proposing.

As far as I can see, conservatives are trying to frame the debate as if Obama is proposing to replace all private insurance with a mandatory public single-payer system. Haha, I wish...

[Sneakgab]

Obamacare? Death panels?

What is this stuff?. Is it just me or did it spring out of nowhere? Has anyone got a link providing info on these things (just factsinfo if you can, not some media story or article). Maybe just a description?

[Andrew]

Watch Daily Show episodes from this week. They show crazy from both sides. One woman tonight said they USA will turn into Russia and socialist country. I think these people think town halls are american idol auditions and the crazier they are the better chance they get on tv and get to talk to tv hosts. They all want to be the new "Joe the plumber".

Death panel: where a panel of people decide who gets what medical treatment based upon whether ti is worth spending money to treat a person.

Obamacare: A way to turn government insurance into a derogatory word and associate it with Obama and his dems, and thus make sure all Republicans are against it.

[Dante]

And a lot of them love to slander the NHS. And I mean that in the most precise definition of the word: many of the claims about it are just not true. Since the number of people in the US without healthcare is over two thirds of the population of Britain (~46m vs ~61m), I'm not sure they have any right to comment.

[chatfsh]

This sums it up rather nicely

[Dante]

Finest in the world. Sure.

So what I said, basically, was 'Americans shouldn't criticise a nationalised health service when so many of them are without healthcare.'

And the reply, if I interpreted correctly was 'It's their own fault if they're without healthcare.'

In some cases, maybe. Certainly not all. And I would question the merit of a system that provides different levels of service depending on how much money you forked out in the beginning, but skipping over that...

Even if it was someone's own fault that they were without healthcare, and it was their own fault that they slipped on an oily rag while juggling torches in the knife room, does that mean that it's ok to let them go without necessary treatment because they can't afford it?

[Khan]

Actually after talking with an American doctor, well med student actually but who's counting?, He said that no one in America goes without necessary care, it's the aftercare and treatment for non life threatening illnesses where people really lose out.

[Dante]

I was under the impression that emergency care can be refused under some financial circumstances. Or at least, the Americans that I've talked to have said as much.

Edit: something that a friend just pointed out to me. Americans are terrified of having their healthcare controlled by elected officials. You know, people that they can vote out of power if they do a bad job. And yet they're quite happy to leave it in the hands of administrators and shareholders. Oh, and drugs companies. Anyone else think that's a mite silly?

[chatfsh]

Finest in the world.  Sure.

Permit me to qualify my statement - the US has the best healthcare that money can buy.  This explains why over 40% of international patients (who have the financial means to do so) travel to the US for medical treatment.  Apparently, there are a number of reasons for this phenomenon:

[Dante]

No. The only time someone is refused medical care is if their lifestyle conflicts with it. eg a liver transplant for an alcoholic who already ruined two doner livers.

"What we're trying to do is generate new revenue for the health-care system."

From your link. A health system shouldn't be concerned with revenue, it should be concerned with doing the best possible job. And I say again, why is the american public happy to let its health rest in the hands of profit-minded individuals when it could leave it in the hands of - at worst - election-minded politicians?

Needs based system > wealth based system. Every time. And for those that can't stand the idea of sharing their treatment with other people who need it just as much, there's always BUPA.

[chatfsh]

Happy is far too strong of a word to use to describe the American sentiment toward our private insurance companies.  Many issues need to be dealt with and we really wouldn

[Dante]

Sure it's paid for by taxes. That's kind of the point. And I suspect that the greatest objection most people would have to nationalised healthcare is that their taxes would be helping other people. And why would anyone want to do that when they could not pay and still get healthcare privately? Screw everyone else.

Well that may be an attitude that an individual can take, but it's not a valid one for a government. And if a government has to tax the rich to pay for the poor's healthcare then it should. So long as it's committed to universal healthcare at all, that is.

Besides which, for many people the NHS is free. During my time at university I didn't pay a penny in taxes (indeed, the government gave me student loans), but I was still treated when I got sick. Students who don't work don't pay taxes, but they still need healthcare. The NHS even provides some inoculations free of charge (besides the mandetory ones like TB and measles that is), though I had to pay for the unusual ones like rabies.

Why isn't the american public comfortable with government control? Don't you trust your leaders? Silly question I suppose, I certainly wouldn't trust your leaders. But they can be voted out of office if they do badly.

[chatfsh]

I think the better question is

[Dante]

Yes, rabies. Highly recommended to be inoculated against it when working with mammals in central america. What's your point?

The government runs the country. I suppose it's difficult to argue on the same level when a people obsesses about money to such an extent. Always questioning value, demanding profit, wrapped up in that all-pervasive sense of entitlement. What they can't see, what with the big dollar signs in their eyes, is that profit margins are not what you want either a government or a healthcare service to be concerned with.

Can't pay? Getting sicker? Too bad.

The greatest asset to the NHS, which has lasted since 1948 and must be doing something right to have managed so long, is hardly even medical at all. We don't fear getting sick here. The peace of mind that comes from knowing that we are, at all times, covered in case of health problems, is incredibly valuable. Just today I opened the newspaper and read about an american man with five children, terrified lest one of them get sick since he lost his job. Doesn't happen here.

Also, is anyone else amused that the anti-NHS scaremongers invoked Godwin's law?

[chatfsh]

Yes, rabies. Highly recommended to be inoculated against it when working with mammals in central america. What's your point?

Just random curiosity.

***

For me this whole debate has nothing to do with profit and everything to do with service. (Unless you're the insurance company)

Typically what happens in a system where the fees are paid in advance and there is only a single provider of the service or good, the provider tends to lose the incentive to provide excellent service and goods.  In other words the quality suffers.

This phenomenon is all too apparent in our state run agencies.  Regarding the agencies that I listed in my prior post, one finds that they are fraught with complacency and lethargy.  The employees don

[Dante]

I was hoping you'd bring up Hannan. Newly discovered darling of the anti-NHS scaremongers, he's been drubbed in the press here and his own boss - Conservative leader David Cameron - has distanced himself from the remarks, going so far as to say "I don't agree with Daniel Hannan. The  Conservative party stands full square behind the NHS ... We back it, we are going to expand it, we have ring-fenced it and said that it will get more money under a Conservative government, and it is our No 1 mission to improve it." As Cameron himself said, there will always be those who do not toe the party line, and while Hannan has his supporters, they are most certainly in the minority. Link.

'Fair competition.'

So multiple providers competing on a level market to drive prices down for the same quality of service. And if you don't have to pay as much, you save money! Money money money

.

Here's something. Having a nationalised health service does not prevent private insurance. I linked BUPA before, and it's hardly the only one. So those who don't want to share their treatment with others can pay for more, if they so desire. Though only about a tenth of the population does. Indeed, BUPA's members have been dropping recently primarily due to the fact that fewer people can afford it right now.

Few people can afford it... Wait, I saw a line like this in another article recently.

The bigger problem is that healthcare bills threaten to be crippling for the state and for people who have limited insurance. Some 60% of bankruptcies in the United States are related to healthcare costs. Companies complain that the costs are making them uncompetitive.

Onoes, the economy! Onoes, uncompetitive! Nevermind that, 60% of bankruptcies? You have a system that is driving people into insolvency and you still think it's a good idea?

History lesson time!

At the end of the 1930's Britain finally realised that the Victorian attitude towards society, that everyone should look after themselves and those who could not should be taken care of through charity, was not working. Men like Benjamin Rowntree had been reporting on the poverty of the industrial cities for decades (influencing the creation of the National Insurance and Old Age Pensions Acts prior to WW1), and were instrumental in setting up the welfare state following the Beveridge Report of 1942.

Central point: charity failed. Being "very generous when it comes to charities and giving to the poor out of our own pockets" and 'helping the needy' as official policy led to swathes of the population existing below the level of subsistence (aka the poverty line).

That is why we have the welfare state, that is why Clement Attlee's government swore to provide for its people "from the cradle to the grave." We learned that lesson eighty years ago. It's taking you a lot longer.

On the subject of lessons, a word about the NHS as it stands today.

The NHS isn't perfect by any means. Know why? Know why it isn't the envy of the world anymore? Because it was underappreciated. For decades it has suffered from chronic underfunding as the people of Britain, primarily the Thatcherite governments from the 1980's to (arguably) 1997, took it for granted and diverted money elsewhere. Or possibly tried to kill it in Thatcher's case. The result was a desperate effort by the health service to stagger on while haemorraging staff, pressing equipment and space to breaking point. We're still recovering from that. Mistakes of the past are being corrected. The horror stories of waiting lists and poor treatment are not inherent facets of the system, they're side effects of a good system stretched to breaking point by limited funding and resources. And possibly Thatcher. Seriously, she really screwed with it.

From the article linked in the post above:

"Fundamentally, people in Scotland just do not want to complain about the NHS." Yeah. And it's not just because "it won't make a difference," it's because a great many people here can't afford private care and the NHS is the best thing around. It's possible that not complaining is a foreign idea to an american, but perhaps we're just a more stoic people.

Random trivia:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6797717.ece

However, Us President Barack Obama's stepmother said last night she owed her life to the NHS. British doctors and nurses saved Kezia Obama, who lives in Berkshire, when she suffered kidney failure. "If it wasn't for the NHS I wouldn't have been alive to see our family's greatest moment - when Barack became president and was sworn into the White House," she said.

All this is largely missing the point, which is that the imperfect NHS and the frankly disastrous american system both have a lot to learn from better healthcare systems in other countries. Continental Europe, perhaps.

Finally, a note on how the debate is largely seen over here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/14/ministers-doctors-defend-uk-nhs

Mike Hobday, of Macmillan Cancer Support, said: "We are really furious at the way in which the NHS, which is the best healthcare system around, is being denigrated by a group of people who clearly don't have the first idea about how it works."

Seriously. Everyone from Sarah Palin to Charles Grassley. Get a clue, folks, you're getting it wrong.

[chatfsh]

I was hoping you'd bring up Hannan. Newly discovered darling of the anti-NHS scaremongers, he's been drubbed in the press here and his own boss - Conservative leader David Cameron - has distanced himself from the remarks, going so far as to say "I don't agree with Daniel Hannan. The  Conservative party stands full square behind the NHS ... We back it, we are going to expand it, we have ring-fenced it and said that it will get more money under a Conservative government, and it is our No 1 mission to improve it." As Cameron himself said, there will always be those who do not toe the party line, and while Hannan has his supporters, they are most certainly in the minority.

I admire Mr. Hannan for having the courage to speak out against the NHS knowing full well that his fellow countrymen would deride him for it.  He is being called unpatriotic just because he criticized the NHS and warned other countries not to follow in the same path.  He may have earned your scorn, but he has earned our gratitude.

Onoes, the economy! Onoes, uncompetitive! Nevermind that, 60% of bankruptcies? You have a system that is driving people into insolvency and you still think it's a good idea?

Well, let

[Dante]

Private means paying, and not everyone can afford to pay. Badda boom.

On a related note, I don't really care what you do. It's your country and, frankly, the worse it gets the better we look by comparison. Given that the comparison is already quite favourable to us, it's not really a big deal. It's when dribbling mouth-breathers start criticising our system that we get riled up; mainly because a) they almost universally do not understand it and b) they're criticising it in protection of a system that is laughably inferior.

Who cares about your gratitude? Seriously. Hannan is a conservative, and while the conservative party as a whole is trying to rebrand itself as a party of the people, some of its members are still clinging to the idea that they represent an elite with an agenda. Namely to save

. Since lets face it, what else is more important to the upper classes?

And after all, who cares if people are being driven to bankruptcy by medical costs? I mean hey, it's not like keeping people alive is a government priority or anything, right? It's all fine as long as we look out for number 1. Or $1.

Unanswered points:

* Private insurance is still an option in this country.

* Charity is not a viable means to support a society.

* "From the cradle to the grave." We've had the welfare state for decades and it hasn't broken the country yet.

[chatfsh]

Private means paying, and not everyone can afford to pay. Badda boom.

Which is why the Netherlands government provides assistance to its poor citizens allowing them to afford healthcare coverage.  I recommend that the U.S. follow their model thus ensuring that all of our citizens are covered regardless of their ability to pay. It

[chatfsh]

Initially I was reluctant to elaborate on a certain topic because it appeared that the argument lacked validity and was nothing more than a spurious claim.  But recently, more information has come forth shedding more light on the issue.

The subject is healthcare rationing through death panels (councils designed to preside over life and death decisions concerning the nation

[Khan]

But isn't the decision with a profit minded insurance company at the moment in the US? NICE may have to make choices over which drugs we can pay for but they at least aren't concerned purely with profit.

Never forget that when patients (with the means to do so) need the best healthcare that this world has to offer, they travel to US to receive it.

I suppose this is a more philosophical point but which do you regard as a better health system, one which treats more people but struggles with very sick people or one that is exclusive but can treat more severely sick people?

[Dunenewt]

Hwi, the very man you quote in your signature is in favour of the NHS.