The Failed experiment with Socialism in the U.K.

Bible-boy · Dec 30, 2008

Matt Black said:

Sorry, late to this thread.

Thatcher - and her legacy - is a subject which continues to deeply divide opinion here to this day. That division is to a degree reflected in my own thoughts on her. On the one hand, she broke the power of the unions which had hitherto held the country to ransom, and allowed the country to prosper in consequence, got inflation under control and made us competitive. On the other hand, by so doing, she also effectively destroyed whole communities eg: mining towns and broke up their social cohesion; as a consequence, Britain has become an in part broken society and a much more unfriendly place in which to live. Her policies also spelled doom for our manufacturing industries; maybe the free market law of the jungle decreed that they died since we were being undercut by foreign competition, but in the event the death of manufacturing caused mass unemployment and further social dislocation, and has also left us dangerously economically exposed in these present times - we no longer 'make' anything. Her orgy of deregulation - accelerated by Brown - also in part contributed to the credit bubble which has now disastrously burst in the last 18 months. To her credit, she reduced government spending, borrowing and taxation but this was sometimes at the expense of cutting services which were, in the event, pretty essential eg: the NHS nurses and other frontline staff.
Click to expand...

Hey Matt,

Thanks for that honest response. When looking at the current banking/credit problems in the UK that you mentioned, is it fair lay all the blame at Thatcher's feet? I mean, just like here in the US, it is not fair to atribute our current economic problems solely to the policies of one party or the other. As hillclimber1 pointed out the failure of capitalism in the banking system can be shown to have its roots in the enactment of socialistic pressure that caused it's downfall. At the same time we have "conservative Republicans" in office who turned out to be not so conservative when it came to social issues or fiscal issues. They, along with the liberal Democrates, spent us into oblivion and massively increased the size and reach of the federal government.

Matt Black said:

A word or two about terms. What we had was not socialism from 1945 (Eastern Europe had that) but a form of social democracy. The bank bail out is not socialism: socialism is where you take from the rich - particularly land - to give to everyone. The bail out is taking from everyone to give to some rich bankers, which is the opposite of socialism.

Just my £0.02 - shortly to be worth $0.02!
Click to expand...

Regarding the use of the term socialism note what Thatcher says:

With the election of Attlee’s Labour Government, however, there began a sustained attempt, which lasted over thirty years, to halt this relative decline and kick-start a resurgence along lines which—whether we call them socialist, socialist democrat, statist or merely Butskellite* (* A political term dating from the early 1950s, denoting a consensus politician combining the moderate Conservatism of R.A. Butler with the moderate socialism of Hugh Gaitskell.)—represented a centralizing, managerial, bureaucratic, interventionist style of government. Already large and unwieldy after its expansion in two world wars, the British Government very soon jammed a finger in every pie. It levied high rates of tax on work, enterprise, consumption, and wealth transfer. It planned development at every level—urban, rural, industrial, and scientific. It managed the economy, macro-economically by Keynesian methods of fiscal manipulation, micro-economically by granting regional and industrial subsidies on a variety of criteria. It nationalized industries, either directly by taking ownership, or indirectly by using its powers of regulation to constrain the decisions of private management in the direction the Government wanted. (As Arthur Shenfield put it, the difference between public and private sectors was that the private sector was controlled by government, and the public sector wasn’t controlled by anyone.) It made available various forms of welfare for a wide range of contingencies—poverty, unemployment, large families, old age, misfortune, ill-health, family quarrels—generally on a universal basis. And when some people preferred to rely on their own resources or on the assistance of family and friends, the Government would run advertising campaigns to persuade people of the virtues of dependence.
Click to expand...

JustChristian · Dec 30, 2008

Bible-boy said:

Yep,

Here ya go:

The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA) is landmark legislation that mandates that all patients seeking emergency treatment receive an adequate medical screening examination and that they not be discriminated against because of inability to pay.

Source: http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/53/10/1301

So if you don't have medical insurance all you have to do is go to the local Emergency Room and request medical care. The hospital can not turn you away based on your inability to pay. They must treat you.

I experienced this very situation in 1989. My wife became very ill. I was at work (out in the field) and my office had no way to contact me (we did not have radios or cell phones). My sister-in-law just happen to stop by my house and found my wife crawling to the door. She took her to the Emergency Room. The small company I worked for did not offer medical insurance that would cover my wife. The hospital treated her. I came in and met with someone from the business office explained my financial situation, and set up a payment plan. I paid the hospital $25.00 that day. The total bill was huge. It would have taken me twnety years or more to pay off the total at $25.00 per month. However, the Hospital had access to state progarm that allowed them to write off a significant amount. I paid some, the state paid some, and the hospital wrote off the rest. This is why some of the debate tactics used to push the idea of nationalized healthcare are false and misleading.
Click to expand...

The problem is that this law only covers emergency conditions not total medical care or preventative care. Here is the language from the law.

1) The term "emergency medical condition" means--

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in--

(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,

(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant women [FN2] who is having contractions--

(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

In addition, the emphasis of this law is to determine whether the patient with an emergency condition can be safely transferred to another hospital where the patient might be covered by insurance or where care for indigents is usually provided, i.e. the local "general" hospital. Most statistics would show that they would receive inferior care at such an institution.

Bible-boy · Dec 30, 2008

JustChristian said:

The problem is that this law only covers emergency conditions not total medical care or preventative care. Here is the language from the law.

1) The term "emergency medical condition" means--

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in--

(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,

(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant women [FN2] who is having contractions--

(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

In addition, the emphasis of this law is to determine whether the patient with an emergency condition can be safely transferred to another hospital where the patient might be covered by insurance or where care for indigents is usually provided, i.e. the local "general" hospital. Most statistics would show that they would receive inferior care at such an institution.
Click to expand...

Okay,

Note that in addition to this law, which makes it illegal to refuse to treat a person based upon their inability to pay, you also just acknowledged that there are specific hospitals ("local 'general' hospital") where treatment is provided regardless of one's ability to pay. What statistics with reference sources back the claim of "inferior care"? This US Healthcare stuff is way off topic so if you seriously want to discuss it please start a new thread on this specific topic and address the questions I raised here. However, please let this thread return to the discussion of the OP subect matter.

JustChristian · Dec 30, 2008

Mr

Bible-boy said:

Okay,

Note that in addition to this law, which makes it illegal to refuse to treat a person based upon their inability to pay, you also just acknowledged that there are specific hospitals ("local 'general' hospital") where treatment is provided regardless of one's ability to pay. What statistics with reference sources back the claim of "inferior care"? This US Healthcare stuff is way off topic so if you seriously want to discuss it please start a new thread on this specific topic and address the questions I raised here. However, please let this thread return to the discussion of the OP subect matter.
Click to expand...

Notice I said "usually provided" not provided by law. Besides, this treatment isn't free. Nothing is. The taxpayers pay for this treatment. In New York state:

Public Hearing Notice - Hospital Indigent Care

As required by Chapter 58 of the Laws of 2007, the Commissioner of Health and the Chairs of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees have appointed a 13-member Indigent Care Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to assist in an evaluation of the Hospital Indigent Care Pool, including the methodology by which Pool funds are distributed; the type (clinic, emergency or inpatient care) and volume of services provided; the costs incurred by hospitals in relation to receipt of Hospital Indigent Care Pool distributions; and, the relationship between Indigent Care Pool monies and hospital obligations under the newly enacted Hospital Patient Financial Aid Law. The Financial Aid Law requires hospitals, among other things, to provide discounts to uninsured patients with incomes below 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Compliance with these requirements is a condition of receipt of Hospital Indigent Care funding after January 1, 2009.

The Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) provides for $847 million to fund the Hospital Indigent Care. These funds are considered Medicaid Disproportionate Share Payments for hospitals and as such are eligible for federal matching funds. (There is a separate $60 million Pool to cover indigent care at comprehensive diagnostic and treatment centers.) HCRA sub-allocates the hospital indigent care pool funds to public hospitals, voluntary hospitals, and rural hospitals. Awards from such segregated amounts are based on specified methodologies; most funds are distributed on the basis of accounting losses reported by hospitals for uncollected receivables technically referred to as bad debt and charity care write-offs. More detail on Hospital Indigent Care Pool distributions can be found on the Department of Health's Web site.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll take a look at care in these hospitals versus the best hospitals like Columbia Presbyterian.

Matt Black · Dec 31, 2008

Bible-boy said:

Hey Matt,

Thanks for that honest response. When looking at the current banking/credit problems in the UK that you mentioned, is it fair lay all the blame at Thatcher's feet? I mean, just like here in the US, it is not fair to atribute our current economic problems solely to the policies of one party or the other. As hillclimber1 pointed out the failure of capitalism in the banking system can be shown to have its roots in the enactment of socialistic pressure that caused it's downfall. At the same time we have "conservative Republicans" in office who turned out to be not so conservative when it came to social issues or fiscal issues. They, along with the liberal Democrates, spent us into oblivion and massively increased the size and reach of the federal government.
Click to expand...

No, it's not correct to lay all the blame at Thatcher's feet: Blair and Brown continued and extended the deregulation of the financial services industry in particular with the Financial Services Act 2003, transferring for example the regulatory function of the Council of Mortgage Lenders to the Financial Services Authority, which had no teeth, hence the nickname 'Fundamentally Supine Authority'. Lending, unregulated effectively, then sprialled out of control. But it was Thatcher who first 'preached the gospel of deregulation'.

Regarding the use of the term socialism note what Thatcher says:
Click to expand...

I note her definitions, but they are conflations of terminologies used as a euphemism for 'ideologies that I don't like'. There's a world of difference between Rab Butler's One-nation Toryism (which we did have in the UK) for example and full-blown socialism (which we never had in reality). One can argue that they are all on the same 'statist' continuum but that doesn't make them the same, anymore than the likes of Campolo's leftist evangelicalism being on the same continuum as fundamentalism makes them the same. YMMV of course...

LadyEagle · Dec 31, 2008

I'll take a look at care in these hospitals versus the best hospitals like Columbia Presbyterian.
Click to expand...

Please start a thread about healthcare in the US. This thread is about the UK. Your cooperation is appreciated.

LE

Bible-boy · Dec 31, 2008

Happy New Year Matt,

It is interesting that you brought up the subject of deregulation in the UK being responsible for the current credit crisis there. Today I found the following article at bloomberg.com addressing the subject here in the US note that it says in part:

One supposed nail in capitalism’s coffin is the assertion that deregulation created the problems. This is curious, given that banks, which are at the root of the credit crunch, are among the most highly regulated institutions.
“There is a small army of people overseeing the banking industry,” says Paul DeRosa, a partner at Mt. Lucas Management Corp. in New York. And yet “we’ve had a banking crisis every 15 years since 1837. The number of people devoted to regulation doesn’t seem to matter.”
Regulators from the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Controller of the Currency and New York State Banking Commission are “on the premises 365 days a year,” he says….
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_baum&sid=aR6Eq.uqJAyA
Click to expand...

After reading the above article I began to question the idea of whether or not deregulation during the current Bush Administration really caused the current credit “crisis.” Before we can accurately make such a claim we must first demonstrate that deregulation of the Banking Industry actually took place during the Bush Administration. Let’s see. Research by the Heritage Foundation states:

The ultimate test of an Administration's performance is results: How has the burden of regulation changed? How does that change compare to changes under previous Administrations?
However, the answer is not easy to determine. There is simply no explicit, complete, and accurate way to track changes in regulatory costs from year to year.26 However, a number of measures can illuminate the picture, albeit imperfectly. Together, they may provide a fair picture of what is happening in the regulatory world.27 Among these are:

Number of Federal Register Pages. Before any new federal rule can be proposed or finalized, the agency involved must publish it in the Federal Register. Over the years, the size of this daily publication has often been used as a rough measure of federal regulatory activity.
In 2003, the total number of pages in the Federal Register topped 75,798. While less than the astounding 80,332 in 2002, the number is still high compared to other recent Administrations.28 During the Clinton Administration, page totals were generally less than 70,000. During the Reagan and first Bush Administrations, totals were even lower, typically in the 40,000-50,000 range.
However, Federal Register page counts are an extremely crude measure of regulatory activity. For one thing, they are easily manipulated. On occasion, font sizes have even been changed to keep the page count low….

Length of the Code of Federal Regulations. Another measure of regulation is the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).... ...The CFR is the regulatory equivalent of a statute book, including only the text of existing regulations.
In number of pages, the CFR makes the Federal Register look rather small, with the 2003 edition weighing in at 144,177 pages.... While a little less than the record 145,099 pages in 2002, the 2003 total is about 2 percent more than when Bush took office in 2001. This rate of increase is actually greater than the rate during the Clinton presidency, when the page count increased about 7.5 percent over eight years, but about half the size of the increases during the first Bush Administration and--perhaps surprisingly--the Reagan Administration. The CFR exploded during the Carter Administration, increasing by 26 percent over four years….
Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/bg1801.cfm
Click to expand...

If you are interested in the economic effects of government regulation (regulatory taxes) you should visit the above link and read the entire article. Anyway, the bottom line is that despite the talk of “deregulation” in the US we really have not seen a decrease in regulation. Rather, regulation has increased steadily over the years. Some administrations have not introduced as many new regulations (i.e. Reagan, 1st Bush) while others introduced more (i.e. Carter, Clinton, and the current Bush administrations). What we have not seen is greatly reduced regulatory burdens in the form of existing regulations being removed from the CFR.

The way it played out here in the US is that the Carter Administration introduced and passed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Then the Clinton Administration greatly increased the scope of the CRA and gave it some real teeth. The end result was that it required financial institutions to make loans to high risk applicants with no regard for their ability to repay the debt of the loan. Furthermore, if the lending institutions didn’t make these loans, they faced huge financial penalties and greater regulation from the government (e.g. they would not be allowed to open new branches or would not be allowed to merge with other banking institutions etc.). Then on top of all this the lending institutions were told not to worry about making such loans because if the mortgage holders failed to repay the debt the lenders would be covered by our federal loan agencies Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac. So our private banks made high risk loans at greater interest rates and passed any bad debts on the federal Fannie and Freddie programs. In a true free market system these high risk people simply would not have been given loans. However, now we are seeing the end result of what happens when the government pokes its socialistic regulatory nose into the private business world.

This leaves me to wonder if something similar happened in the banking industry in the UK. Do you know if your government actually deregulated your lending institutions (meaning removed existing regulations and issued fewer new ones), or did your government simply reduce the number of new regulations while increasing the scope and power of existing regulations resulting in similar forced high risk loans being made?

Bible-boy · Dec 31, 2008

Matt Black said:

I note her definitions, but they are conflations of terminologies used as a euphemism for 'ideologies that I don't like'. There's a world of difference between Rab Butler's One-nation Toryism (which we did have in the UK) for example and full-blown socialism (which we never had in reality). One can argue that they are all on the same 'statist' continuum but that doesn't make them the same, anymore than the likes of Campolo's leftist evangelicalism being on the same continuum as fundamentalism makes them the same. YMMV of course...
Click to expand...

I read her material in that section as saying that she does not care what you call the system(s) your government tried, between 1945 and 1979; however, they all had certain things in common (i.e. high tax rates on everything, expanded government regulations, and the socialization/nationalization of the major means of production). Then she pointed out how the people of the UK became dependent upon the government for welfare, healthcare, transportation, jobs, etc. At the same time the labor unions were given ever greater control and authority which chocked industry. Finally all of this combined to wreck the British economy resulting in the UK being called "The Sick Man of Europe" (economically speaking) during the 1960s and 1970s.

She was clear in saying that what your government tried to do was to create a democratic socialist society that was a third way between American Free-market Capitalism and the Eastern European Collectivist Communism. I titled the thread as the experiment with socialism in the U.K. simply because we have been debating over socialism here in the US since the recent election. I was not trying to suggest that the UK was a Socialist country like those of Eastern Europe. The point is the system you all tried in the UK for 30+ years ended in economic failure and now we have people here in the US who want to take us down that same road. I maintain that we should not go there and that we should return to the conservative principles of true free-market capitalism.

I like what Winston Churchill had to say on the matter:

Capitalism is surely the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried.
Click to expand...

hillclimber1 · Dec 31, 2008

Changed my mind, it was off topic too far....sorry

Jim1999 · Dec 31, 2008

I am not going to get involved in American politics cos I know what the response will be...Socialist=communist-atheist...........Yeppers, I have seen that one.

Now, ask Brits what the rail system is like to-day in the UK after Margaret Thatcher made it private? My wife was back home just three years ago.. the train system gave her a bus ticket to finish her trip beause the rails had failed. We never had that under Labour. It was the most dependable system of travel. Nothing but breakdowns, ill repairs and it is a mess..yes, Thatcher did good, didn't she?

Before 1952, if we wanted medical care we had to pay cash up front and few of us could afford it. We went to the gypsies,,yes, the gypsies to get medicines that might make us well. Or, we just suffered the illness and hoped we got better. Labour Party brought in Home Health. The mistake they made was that they left medical practice open to the Lords and Ladies of society, the upper-biscuit and they could get whatever they want for cash,,just like the US of A....yes, by law people are entitled to medical services,first, find the right hospital, cos not all Hospitals provide that care,,then, 75% of all personal bankruptcies in the USA are related to health care. People even lose their homes cos they can't pay! No one ever loses their home cos they can't pay for health care in either the UK or Canada.

For me to come to the USA, I must pay $250. per day for additional health costs,,over and above what the Canadian Health Care system will pay toward the very high price of American Health costs...One Canadian had a heart attack in Florida. Their bill exceeded $10,000.00 (above what Canada and their personal insurance plan paid. Good Lord, they even had to pay extra for their bed pan!!!!

I have had 4 strokes and it hasn't cost me one penny, and yes, I received immediate care in hospital. There is no waiting list i emergency..I may have to wait for hip surgery, but that is not an emergency.

My daughter is a medical doctor in the US. Trying asking her to compare what is said about the US system and what really happens!!!! You want truth? I can give you truth. Question? How many Americans right to-day are without any medical coverage at all? Come on,,,stop stuttering. The number will break your heart. We may have a doctor shortage in Canada right now, but everyone who goes to hospital emergency receives free medical care even without a personal doctor.

Is socialism perfect? Certainly not. It is, however, responsible as we are taught in the scriptures. We are our brothers keeper...We are to sell what we have and give to the poor..I believe Jesus taught me that...It does not mean to foolishly throw money down the sewer. It simply means to care for our neighbour and that chap found in the street when that bloke picked him up and took him to the inn for food and lodging. I think that was in the Bible and not the socialist memoranda.

Has socialism failed? Sure it has. Why it even allowed unions to form. Unions to rob a man from his money that he invested to build a company and the unions take over.....why weren't you speaking up against those socialist unions in this democratic country? Perhaps you worked for a union.

Democratic Socialism never deprived a man or his country from is freedom with the laws of the country. He still votes for his government,,,as they did in the UK when the Labour Party did Churchill in after the war when we had had enough of him..and then down the road along comes Maggie. Yes, time for a change, and another war,,The Falklands..We need a Tory in power to handle the war........then she was booted out. She had torn down enough of the country. Time for a change. Give Laour another go.........but Labur has to undue all the damage that Maggie did and we don't have any money cause she drove the debt up so high giving those government controlled companies to private hands,,,who systematically pulled them apart.

Call me a socialst cos I am proud of that as would be my precious Lord Jesus who showed me the way. The communist part I get a little touchy about cos I risked my life fighting communism. The atheist connection I absolutely abhor for obvious reasons.

Had enough? I have cos I kow it will hit empty ears, echo and just bounce of the walls. I sure wish my Brit buddies would come in cos I know one is not even Labour Party, but I think he will back up what I said. Sometimes it isn't even Party so much as it is doing what is right.

Oh, in closing, the government jumping in and helping a big company facing ruin and mass unemployment is prolly what a socialist governent would do. Welcome to socialism.

Cheers,

Jim

JustChristian · Dec 31, 2008

Bible-boy said:

Thatcher quote continued:

America had better take a lesson from this wise woman quick fast and in a hurry. Our decline into Socialism is not just the fault of the Liberal/Socialist Democrats. Just like the “conservative” Tory Party in the U.K. our “conservative” GOP has stood by and done nothing to reverse our slide into Socialism. It is time for true conservatives to wake up and demand a return to real conservative principles and policies.
Click to expand...

I'd like to ask the moderator what this post is about.

JustChristian · Dec 31, 2008

Bible-boy said:

I fully understand it. I am trying to get the people who read this site to understand why it is bad for the country and motivate them to demand that our government leaders turn away from it as opposed to asking for more government hand outs. Like I said at the conclusion of my second post in this thread, America had better take a lesson from this wise woman (Margaret Thatcher) quick fast and in a hurry. Our decline into Socialism is not just the fault of the Liberal/Socialist Democrats. Just like the “conservative” Tory Party in the U.K. our “conservative” GOP has stood by and done nothing to reverse our slide into Socialism. It is time for true conservatives to wake up and demand a return to real conservative principles and policies.
Click to expand...

This post compares the US with the UK.

JustChristian · Dec 31, 2008

Bible-boy said:

No one is attempting to make that claim. I am talking about the western European states that have gone down the road of full blown democratic socialism (like the U.K. between 1945 and 1979, or Germany in the 1990s) or the failed Soviet style communist states (Russia, Romania, Poland, the Czechs etc.).

I agree, except about the healthcare issue. The medical field is an industry and the government ought to be hands off when it comes to U.S. industry (other than to pass legislation making it illegal to fail to provide medical care based on one's ability to pay, which is already the case here in the U.S.).
Click to expand...

Topic is the US.

JustChristian · Dec 31, 2008

KenH said:

Yep. :thumbs:

Besides, with failure of capitalism in the United States it's rather silly for right-wingers to be criticizing socialism. You folks need to clean up your own failed ideology first before you continue preaching it to others.
Click to expand...

Topic is the US.

JustChristian · Dec 31, 2008

Bible-boy said:

Yep,

Here ya go:

The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA) is landmark legislation that mandates that all patients seeking emergency treatment receive an adequate medical screening examination and that they not be discriminated against because of inability to pay.

Source: http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/53/10/1301

So if you don't have medical insurance all you have to do is go to the local Emergency Room and request medical care. The hospital can not turn you away based on your inability to pay. They must treat you.

I experienced this very situation in 1989. My wife became very ill. I was at work (out in the field) and my office had no way to contact me (we did not have radios or cell phones). My sister-in-law just happen to stop by my house and found my wife crawling to the door. She took her to the Emergency Room. The small company I worked for did not offer medical insurance that would cover my wife. The hospital treated her. I came in and met with someone from the business office explained my financial situation, and set up a payment plan. I paid the hospital $25.00 that day. The total bill was huge. It would have taken me twnety years or more to pay off the total at $25.00 per month. However, the Hospital had access to state progarm that allowed them to write off a significant amount. I paid some, the state paid some, and the hospital wrote off the rest. This is why some of the debate tactics used to push the idea of nationalized healthcare are false and misleading.
Click to expand...

Healthcare in the US.

JustChristian · Dec 31, 2008

Mr

Bible-boy said:

Okay,

Note that in addition to this law, which makes it illegal to refuse to treat a person based upon their inability to pay, you also just acknowledged that there are specific hospitals ("local 'general' hospital") where treatment is provided regardless of one's ability to pay. What statistics with reference sources back the claim of "inferior care"? This US Healthcare stuff is way off topic so if you seriously want to discuss it please start a new thread on this specific topic and address the questions I raised here. However, please let this thread return to the discussion of the OP subect matter.
Click to expand...

Healthcare in the US.

If this topic shouldn't be in this thread why did the moderator allow all these comments. Just more "liberal" bashing.

Bible-boy · Dec 31, 2008

Jim1999 said:

I am not going to get involved in American politics cos I know what the response will be...Socialist=communist-atheist...........Yeppers, I have seen that one.

Now, ask Brits what the rail system is like to-day in the UK after Margaret Thatcher made it private? My wife was back home just three years ago.. the train system gave her a bus ticket to finish her trip beause the rails had failed. We never had that under Labour. It was the most dependable system of travel. Nothing but breakdowns, ill repairs and it is a mess..yes, Thatcher did good, didn't she?

Before 1952, if we wanted medical care we had to pay cash up front and few of us could afford it. We went to the gypsies,,yes, the gypsies to get medicines that might make us well. Or, we just suffered the illness and hoped we got better. Labour Party brought in Home Health. The mistake they made was that they left medical practice open to the Lords and Ladies of society, the upper-biscuit and they could get whatever they want for cash,,just like the US of A....yes, by law people are entitled to medical services,first, find the right hospital, cos not all Hospitals provide that care,,then, 75% of all personal bankruptcies in the USA are related to health care. People even lose their homes cos they can't pay! No one ever loses their home cos they can't pay for health care in either the UK or Canada.

For me to come to the USA, I must pay $250. per day for additional health costs,,over and above what the Canadian Health Care system will pay toward the very high price of American Health costs...One Canadian had a heart attack in Florida. Their bill exceeded $10,000.00 (above what Canada and their personal insurance plan paid. Good Lord, they even had to pay extra for their bed pan!!!!

I have had 4 strokes and it hasn't cost me one penny, and yes, I received immediate care in hospital. There is no waiting list i emergency..I may have to wait for hip surgery, but that is not an emergency.

My daughter is a medical doctor in the US. Trying asking her to compare what is said about the US system and what really happens!!!! You want truth? I can give you truth. Question? How many Americans right to-day are without any medical coverage at all? Come on,,,stop stuttering. The number will break your heart. We may have a doctor shortage in Canada right now, but everyone who goes to hospital emergency receives free medical care even without a personal doctor.

Is socialism perfect? Certainly not. It is, however, responsible as we are taught in the scriptures. We are our brothers keeper...We are to sell what we have and give to the poor..I believe Jesus taught me that...It does not mean to foolishly throw money down the sewer. It simply means to care for our neighbour and that chap found in the street when that bloke picked him up and took him to the inn for food and lodging. I think that was in the Bible and not the socialist memoranda.

Has socialism failed? Sure it has. Why it even allowed unions to form. Unions to rob a man from his money that he invested to build a company and the unions take over.....why weren't you speaking up against those socialist unions in this democratic country? Perhaps you worked for a union.

Democratic Socialism never deprived a man or his country from is freedom with the laws of the country. He still votes for his government,,,as they did in the UK when the Labour Party did Churchill in after the war when we had had enough of him..and then down the road along comes Maggie. Yes, time for a change, and another war,,The Falklands..We need a Tory in power to handle the war........then she was booted out. She had torn down enough of the country. Time for a change. Give Laour another go.........but Labur has to undue all the damage that Maggie did and we don't have any money cause she drove the debt up so high giving those government controlled companies to private hands,,,who systematically pulled them apart.

Call me a socialst cos I am proud of that as would be my precious Lord Jesus who showed me the way. The communist part I get a little touchy about cos I risked my life fighting communism. The atheist connection I absolutely abhor for obvious reasons.

Had enough? I have cos I kow it will hit empty ears, echo and just bounce of the walls. I sure wish my Brit buddies would come in cos I know one is not even Labour Party, but I think he will back up what I said. Sometimes it isn't even Party so much as it is doing what is right.

Oh, in closing, the government jumping in and helping a big company facing ruin and mass unemployment is prolly what a socialist governent would do. Welcome to socialism.

Cheers,

Jim
Click to expand...

This is the exact type of anecdotal evidence that I told C4K would not be helpful in the discussion because both sides could pile up similar stories that contradict one another. For example: My wife and daughter traveled extensively throughout the UK (from Scotland to England) by rail in June and July 2006. They never had a problem. They raved about the great the UK rail system. I did the same traveling in London and Glasgow in 2007. Great rail service never had problem (buses and subways were great too). Just one example...

Jim1999 · Dec 31, 2008

Then lets leave the socialism vs so-called democracy thing alone because all thee vidence given will be anecdotal..I can only tell you what I lived through in the UK and in Canada...You can only relate from holidays. I will leave you alone i the USA and you leave me alone in the UK and Canada.. Fair dinkum..I don't like getting angry anyway.

Cheers,

Jim

Oh, I forgot about the bloke who was taken by ambulance to four different hospitals in the Detroit area before they found a hospital to take him,,,,too late, he died at hospital four,he had no medical coverage. That was in the newspaper..........Right! The newspapers are all liberal.

LadyEagle · Jan 1, 2009

Closed because thread is off topic.

The Failed experiment with Socialism in the U.K.

Bible-boy Active Member

JustChristian New Member

Bible-boy Active Member

JustChristian New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Bible-boy Active Member

Bible-boy Active Member

hillclimber1 Active Member
Site Supporter

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

JustChristian New Member

JustChristian New Member

JustChristian New Member

JustChristian New Member

JustChristian New Member

JustChristian New Member

Bible-boy Active Member

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Useful Searches

The Failed experiment with Socialism in the U.K.

Bible-boy Active Member

JustChristian New Member

Bible-boy Active Member

JustChristian New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Bible-boy Active Member

Bible-boy Active Member

hillclimber1 Active Member Site Supporter

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

JustChristian New Member

JustChristian New Member

JustChristian New Member

JustChristian New Member

JustChristian New Member

JustChristian New Member

Bible-boy Active Member

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

hillclimber1 Active Member
Site Supporter