so out of touch!

i've just been reading a US based web site (hotair) and some of the posts on there are so out of touch with reality. Can I explain that the British NHS (National Health Service) is a Free health service to British nationals and is restricted only in its budgets to the services and medication provided. British nationals are  not forced into using this service and have the choice of paying for any service, treatment, or medication they wish to.

If the NHS cant afford to fund a particular drug or treatment a British national has the freedom to pay for it themselves or if they carry private medical insurance they can claim the costs from their insurance company.. 

Will people out there in the States who oppose our NHS put their brains in gear and stop trying to use our 'sometimes limited budgeted NHS' as an excuse to their fellow oposition and their own (in my opinion) second rate US health care policies.

I don't think all Americans think that way about the NHS, Michael. I certainly don't share those sentiments.

I do agree, however, that most health care policies in the U.S. and Britain as well as other places are "second rate" in that they are all driven by profit first and the care of people second.

Michael, the blog world is full of stuff like that.  A long time ago we were told that Britain had "socialized" medicine.  The "S" word is a bad one over here and the super right wing conservatives are simply trying to derail any changes to the healthcare system, especially if it's Obama's idea.  The president can't do anything right in their eyes. 

What we have in America is the good, old-fashioned capitalism style of healthcare and that's driven by, as Diana said, profit first.  So after years of getting away with denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, charging exhorbitant premiums to employers and individual customers, and excluding coverage outright because it's beyond the reach of the average person's pocketbook, the government, at Obama's urging and pubic outcry, is finally trying to fix it.  But with so many conflicting agendas, there are bound to be lies.

The United States could afford completely free healthcare, like you enjoy over there, for every one of its 300 million citizens with about a month's worth of what's being spent on those 2 stupid wars.

The thing that annoys me most about people who don't want to see government involvement is that they're so brainwashed by the spectre of "big government" that they can't see that the government is trying to spend a little money on OUR citizens for a change, instead of trying to take care of the whole world.  For cryin out loud, there are still people living in FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration) trailers, which were only supposed to be for temporary housing, after Hurricane Katrina which was 4 blinkin years ago already.

What it boils down to is that it has to be a user pay system, and everybody, needs to kick in a little.  And yes, there should be govt. subsidies for truly needy people who can barely keep bread and board together and don't have one extra penny to spend on premiums.  But people who afford it should pay - it shouldn't just be employers who pay and it should't just be the govt. who pays.  The other role of the govt is to regulate the insurance industry (one of the biggest and most powerful lobbies in Washington) so that they can't continue to make record profits on the backs of the people who aren't getting coverage.

Good post's from our US lady POE members, as usual. Hope you get your wishes, Remember this quote.

DONT' LOOK DOWN ON ANYONE, UNLESS ITS TO HELP THEM UP.

I think the main problem with the US and having a national healthcare system is two-fold.  One is a problem of a combination of misinformation, and what I would term as non-information.  Ruth is corrrect in that the far right is doing everything it can to make it sound like there will be 'death panels' and sub-par care.  The lack of an unbiased media doesn't help.  Personally I don't the the administration has done a good job in really spelling out in plain English to the American people not only what this plan entails, but also an important feature of what it will cost and how we as taxpayers will pay for it.  Unfortunately our '2 stupid wars' are not going away anytime soon.  It has to be paid for somehow; obviously elves aren't going to foot the bill, so that leaves the good 'ole citizens to pick up the tab.  I have pretty decent health coverage at a reasonable rate - am I going to be paying more for this national healthcare?  I haven't seen satisfactory answers to the important issue of cost.  Do you know how much they pay in taxes in Canada?  There is no free lunch.

And yes the current system is for profit - but the plus side of that is that doctors make a lot of money and therefore the incentive is there to be well-trained in order to get into the best practices (and make more money).  Yes they get wealthy at our expense, but we get excellent medical care.  Will this diminish if the incentive to become a doctor and its subsequent wealth is lost?  Or will the quality of care suffer dramitically?  Will some procedures that were previously insured become 'unnecessary' now?  Too many unanswered questions.  If the answers are there I haven't heard them, which shows the lack of good information.

And Lanc-love that's where the discussion of your system come into play.  People look to what's in existence.  I have a good many English friends and they seem to be forever complaining about how long they have to wait to see a doctor about some ailment.  Here in the States currently I can go the same day usually if it's something causing me pain.  It doesn't exactly give a 'warm and fuzzy'. 

I think the American people can be excused for wanting to know the specifics on what it might cost them if the average taxpayer is footing the bill for coverage for all.  Universal health care sounds like a beautiful thing - but it's not free.