Sunday, May 06, 2007
Nicolas Sarkozy elected French President
With a reported turnout of 85% to match the first round vote, and with three-quarters of the votes counted putting support for Sarkozy at 53%, the socialist candidate Segolene Royal conceded defeat. Whether the televised debate, or her comments on Sarkozy - She said she had a “responsibility to sound the alarm about the risks of this candidacy and the violence and brutality that will be spawned in the country.” - influenced the result isn’t clear, but the polls gave him a lead ahead of today’s second round vote. The Guardian claims that his first 100 days in office are already mapped out.. after a three-day retreat to, perhaps, a monastry.. hmm.. the BBC profile and expectations of what happens next is here. There have been reports of some skirmishes at the Bastille..
Pete Baker @ 09:39 PM
Harry:
Rather obvious I’d have thought both news organisations have been spinning Sarkozy as some form of Atila the Hun who likes to eat black babies lightly barbequed. (Why did the Beeb always refer to Sarkozy as the ‘right wing’ candidate but Royal was never the ‘left wing’ candidate but rather the nice soft focus “socialist” candidate?)
Why specifically do you think that using the term “left wing” rather than “socialist” conveys bias ? To my mind, “left wing” can range from anyone slightly left of centre through to a die hard Trot.
Sarkozy has a tough guy image that he has cultivated himself quite deliberately, f.ex over Turkey’s admission to the EU. I don’t see how you can blame the BBC for reporting this.
To them France, with its massive social spending,
What’s wrong with social spending ?
sclerotic economy,
People in France seem to be reasonably happy. I think the cap on the working week was a stupid idea, but they generally work less hours and have high rates of productivity. What’s the problem ? The country isn’t bankrupt - GNP is higher than in Germany - and is major world economy, equivalent to the UK.
gee whizz trains (I’ve never understood the left’s obsession with trains),
Trains are a great way to travel the appropriate distance, without all of the security, legroom and other problems associated with planes; and you’ve got that environment thing as well. In business terms, they are more financially sustainable and less volatile than other equivalent modes - compare with the massive tax subsidies granted to airlines for example. I don’t think people should get religious about any means of transport though.
35 hour week, statist mentality, elitist disdain for Anglo-America,
Sounds like it’s mutal to me. Though keep the “Anglo” bit out, the Brits have the Entente Cordiale.
nihilism,
Eh ?
bolshie unions,
For sure, these exist in other places too. What gives ?
protectionism etc etc
As practiced by all the major countries in the West. We could start with the view taken by the USA on the operation of online casinos.
Now the evil goblin has got the keys to the magic kingdom and is going to sweep out the Augean stables that exist there and the libs can only sit and weep.
Yeah. I remember people saying this when Chirac was elected - he defeated the socialist candidate during both of the Presidential elections prior to this one, twice. The first time out, people said he’d turn the place upside down and shake out all the bad stuff. In practice, not a lot changed, and people don’t remember that much other than his resumption of nuclear testing in the Pacific, which reminds me very much of Sarkozy’s tough talk on foreign policy right now.
Oh sure the lefties can whip up mobs to riot against the French people’s democratic choice (can you imagine the outrage of the Guardianistas if Sarko or heaven forfend Le Pen had warned of skinheads rioting if the French people elected Royal? Her statement was one of the most despicable I have ever heard a candidate in a major European democracy ever made and I reckon cost her the job) but in the end the good guys won.
It appears that you’ve forgotten how Chirac got elected by using scare tactics, telling people to support him in order to keep Le Pen out.
Royal’s statement was indeed despicable, and reminded me of statements made during the 2004 elections in the USA about how supporting the wrong candidate would weaken the country and leave it open to terrorist attack.
Just watch now how the BBC and the Guardian report on France in the coming years gone will be the utopia they have described for the past thirty years instead all we’ll hear about will be the nasty dirty underbelly stories of French life, in just the same way they spin the USA when a Republican president is elected.
Your rant belies your appalling ignorance. This is the third time in a row that the socialists have been defeated, and represents more or less a continuation of the existing order. Sarkozy is on pretty much the same page as Chirac, except with a distinctly more, shall we say, “American” foreign policy.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 09:30 PMDread:
Mayhap because theay are a perfect metaphor for leftist vision of the perfect government—riders are wholly dependent upon the whimsies of the system. They may choose to take the least inconvenient train, as there is no guarantee of a truly convenient one. Once aboard, the rider is wholly in the control of the powers-that-be and has little control over their own destiny. If things do not work out as promised, the riders has little to no recourse against the operators of the train. Just sit down, shut up and hang on.
I am not sure what you meant by this, but consider that the TGV (the famous French long distance train) has, as it’s competitor, the short-haul flight. Everything that you have said above applies even more to planes than to trains. At least with a train you can pull the emergency stop and jump off. You do not have to be considered a potential terrorist and made to remove your shoes and belt to be checked before boarding one. On a plane you are lawfully required to obey the captain and flight crew, who may detain/restrain you while in flight. This legal matter doesn’t apply on trains.
I regularly have to use flights to go on business visits, and I have to tell you that I’d take the train any day if such a route existed. The flight staff won’t let me use my laptop on the plane for over half the trip (for any destination within the UK). Airports are stuffy, stressful places full of rushing people, overpriced restaurants serving terrible food and bad coffee, and continuous security and identity checks that in and of themselves make you constantly concerned about missing your flight - which is regularly late or even cancelled. While you’re flying, the view outside is rather limited and boring; the noise in the cabin often prevents conversation; you may get sick, dizzy or have a sore head due to the pressure changes on your ascent.
You do not have to be a leftie to see that there is nothing exciting or enjoyable about travelling on a plane.
On healthcare:
Healthcare—again, a decent base-line is one thing, total care another, for largely the same reasons—mission drift and tinkering. Likewise, when cancer patients see an airline ticket as a integral component of their operation, be it Manhatten or Mumbai bound, I have to question the efficacy of a gov’t based solution.
What do you do if you’re on minimum wage in the USA and you find you have cancer ?
I know that in the USA, there are places where you can go to get treated if you have a serious injury or illness, eg a broken leg. If there are people who get treated and cannot pay the bill, and subsequently are forced to declare bankruptcy, it follows that somebody somewhere is paying for that treatment - and that would have to be the people or employers who are paying the insurance premiums to start with. To me the principle difference in practice between the USA and the UK over medicine is that the system in the USA actively tries to deny poorer people healthcare that they would probably get anyway.
The essence of a socialist state is its intrusiveness, both social and economic, sticking their noses into a variety of areas where the government has no business.
Government intervention is required for the smooth running of all capitalist economies. As such governments are required to intrude all the time; capitalism requires a leash in order to operate effectively. If capitalism is not sufficiently restrained, massive poverty, famine, and war may result. F.ex, the recall of loans to Germany by Western governments following the Wall St Crash created the economic circumstances in that country which contributed to the rise of the Nazis. In other words, the operation of unrestrained capitalism leads to the same conclusions as unrestricted socialism.
J McConnell:
I love the TGV too. In fact I’ll be taking one next week. But there again, I’m not a French taxpayer, who will be subsidizing almost two thirds of the true cost of my rail trip.
There is no transport mode which is not subsidized. It is recognized everywhere that subsidizing transport can lead to considerable economic benefits. Well-run subsidized transport systems exist in the United States - for example, the “Deuce” bus that runs along the Las Vegas Strip costs $5 for a 24-hour ticket, with which you can take as many journeys as you like within that period; the buses go up every 5-10 minutes. A day ticket on Translink $7 and the buses are nowhere near as frequent or reliable.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 09:55 PMI had just logged off typing my last entry about how the media would spin the nasty underbelly of French life and went down to get the M&C;out of the cooler. Now I figured the “nasty underbelly” stuff would start slowly but when I turned on BBC World I was stunned to see how quickly they had started.
They were doing a piece from Marseilles I think. Now previously when the Beeb wanted to do reports on French life they always went with the usual formula, you know attractive, glamorous well dressed woman sitting outside at a pavement cafe table earnestly discussing politics (being the BBC of course they didn’t show her smoking) or bucolic peasants sipping pastis at their solid Provencal farmhouses.
See how perfect life was in France? See how they had escaped the crabbed, hateful, dog eat dog selfishness of Thatcherite Reaganomics? What a blissful country with its feather bedded public sector and all inclusive social welfare system and government protected egalitarianism. What’s not to love about France?
So last night we saw that suddenly there were soup kitchens in Marseiles for the destitute homeless. Young people were desperate, they had no jobs, they had no homes they had no future all they faced was a bleak life of poverty stricken hopelessness. What, in the paradise of France? Say it ain’t so Joe, say it ain’t so.
Did these soup kitchens spring up in the hours following Sarko’s victory? Unlikely, so this appalling poverty and desperate inequality has always existed in France has it? So how the feck did the Beeb’s journos never mention it before? Why did the Guardianistas always insist life across the Channel was blissful with their marvellous trains etc (I knew my train comment would rile the lefties, I don’t hate trains Michkhall I just don’t get all onanistic about them)?
Look as I recall after half a century of municipal misrule by the Labour party Liverpool was pretty much a dysfunctional society by the early 1980’s which led to massive riots (blamed of course on Maggie whose party had diddly squat to do with the problem). Last time I checked Liverpool out it was a model of how business and enterprise can re-energise a run down area, lovely new apartment blocks, great restaurants, tourists flocking in a very pleasant place to visit in fact. Compare that with its French equivalent, Marseilles, I didn’t see too many soup kitchens on Merseyside.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 01:03 AMComrade Stalin: “I regularly have to use flights to go on business visits, and I have to tell you that I’d take the train any day if such a route existed.”
In other words, it is about what I said—you take the least inconvenient route.
Comrade Stalin: “What do you do if you’re on minimum wage in the USA and you find you have cancer ?”
Ah, whataboutery… no defense, so distract.
Comrade Stalin: “To me the principle difference in practice between the USA and the UK over medicine is that the system in the USA actively tries to deny poorer people healthcare that they would probably get anyway. “
You really are ignorant of the system over here, aren’t you?
For one, minimum wage likely qualifies for federally funded Medicaid, so the gov’t picksup the tab and the hospital eats the difference between the gov’t payment and their charges. Second, most states and most hospitals have their own general assistance and free care options that the patient take advantage of. Third, not paying is always a popular option. Bad debt fills hospital ledgers—no provider that receives federal monies can turn away a patient in need, regardless of their ability to pay. Lastly, there is the option to get used by Michael Moore for his latest bit of propaganda, as were the cancer patients in his latest project.
The biggest difference between the American and British systems is that in the US, you are expected to pay in specie and have the option to stiff the provider. In the UK, you have to pay in time and suffering through the bureaucracy and, unless you have the money to go elsewhere, you have to sit and wait, hoping that your appointment comes in time.
Comrade Stalin: “Government intervention is required for the smooth running of all capitalist economies. As such governments are required to intrude all the time; capitalism requires a leash in order to operate effectively. “
There is a difference between accepted minimums and central planning. Wage controls, rent controls, price controls—all supposed to protect the little guy, all have the result of actually harming the little guy.
I mean, look at what your policies in the Ukraine wrought…
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 02:24 AMHarry Flashman, it’s noticeable that instead of addressing my questions you opted for the simpler path of another silly rant about the BBC. I guess you do what you have to to make it in this world.
Dread:
You really are ignorant of the system over here, aren’t you?
Yes. I didn’t actually know you were “over there” though.
For one, minimum wage likely qualifies for federally funded Medicaid,
What’s the cutoff for medicaid ?
<I>so the gov’t picksup the tab and the hospital eats the difference between the gov’t payment and their charges.
In other words, higher bills for people who are able to afford them, and higher taxes. In practice, not that far away from a national health system.
Bad debt fills hospital ledgers—no provider that receives federal monies can turn away a patient in need, regardless of their ability to pay.
That is what I thought. My point is that Americans tend to wax lyrical about the benefits of their privately operated system as opposed to the run-down, underfunded “socialized” systems. In practice, Americans have a “socialized” system by the back door - the medical costs of people who cannot afford to pay them are underwritten by those who can, either through their insurance premiums, or through the tax system. From each according to his means, to each according to his need.
There is a difference between accepted minimums and central planning. Wage controls, rent controls, price controls—all supposed to protect the little guy, all have the result of actually harming the little guy.
I wouldn’t advocate central planning, but I think that price controls and a minimum wage are right in very specific circumstances.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 07:36 AMMr Dzhugashvili
> There is no transport mode which is not subsidized.
Not true at all. Only public transport runs at a loss with large taxpayer subsidies. True in the US, true in Europe.
Car users pay net tax. Air-travel users pay net tax. Public tranport user recieve large net tax payer subsidies.
If I was to drive from Paris to the west coast of France next week the several hundred euros it would cost me reflects the true economic cost of the trip. The 50%+ direct and indirect taxes that I would pay on petrol, car running costs etc, not to mention the tolls, not only pays for the infrastructure I’d use but is used to cross subsidize the public transport system whose main purpose, in my experience, is purely political. Jobs for the boys, a pool of dependent and dependable client voters, social engineering etc. Outside the viable core inner city corridors, and the major intercity routes, public transport is just a tax scam to support the political status quo, and particular politcal special interests groups.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 09:31 AMIgnoring the train analogy (as fun as it is).
As Sarkozy commented on the French social model, it aint social if 1 in 10 dont have a job, and it aint a model if no one is copying it.
What the left hasn’t figured out is that the big bad Sarko won mainly down to the sheer incompetence of the Royal, their chosen hero.
Chirac got in as the left was that split it got left with a choice between Chirac and Le Pen.
Sarko got in because Royal was useless, she had no coherent policies.
For a quick example of her sheer incompetence she did not even know how much of France energy was generated by Nuclear power, she guessed at around 10% FFS, the real figure is around 80%. (sarko faire marginally better guessing 50%, worrying that someone who wants to run the country know so little about it)
If the left (in France,or anywhere else) want to be taken seriously they have to realise without a strong economy you cant deliver diddle squat. They wont get any votes or be able to deliver their social program until they get this ismple fact. Happy thoughts dont pay bills.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 11:38 AMComrade,
People in France seem to be reasonably happy.
You really think so? So why were all those people rioting a couple of years ago? Was it because their heavily subsidised TGV didn’t arrive on time? Yes, sure, France is a great place if you’re white, well educated, middle-class and have a well paid public-sector job with all the attendant perks. But it has chronic unemployment, much less visible integration of its ethnic minorities than the UK or, say, Holland, and a socially fossilised education system that ensures that the children of the élite become the next generation’s élite.
More than half a million Britons live in France - mostly old, rich and taking advantage of low French property prices. And more than half a million French live in Britain - mostly young, some successful entrepreneurs, others young ethnic minority Frenchpeople taking advantage of the jobs and open economy creates. That says an awful lot.
Sarkozy is programmatically quite different to Chirac, who was a shameless old-style corporatist, whereas Sarkozy has openly professed his admiration for the British economic model. Sarkozy also has a considerably more sovereigntist approach to the EU than has been traditional among Gaulists.
Despite all that, I agree entirely that planes are dreary dull, the cattle trucks of the 21st Century, that trains are great and that US healthcare is crap. Not so much because it’s a privately funded one per se (because, in fact, around half of US health spending comes from the state), but because American primary care is appallingly poor, tending to overprescribe for minor or imaginary ailments and underdiagnose serious conditions. In fact it’s pretty much licensed hypochondria set up to help pharmaceutical companies and physicians fleece the taxpayer.
French primary care is much better and so are the TGVs. But then again, it’s been a while since there have been big race riots in the States which might not be disconnected from the fact that it’s a lot easier to find a job. There ain’t no such thing as a perfect system.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 11:59 AMComrade Stalin: “Yes. I didn’t actually know you were “over there” though. “
I’ll take that as a compliment. :)
I also happen to work in the field of healthcare finance / auditing. I apologize if I seem snappish, but you were stepping on my corns, you see…
Comrade Stalin: “In other words, higher bills for people who are able to afford them, and higher taxes. In practice, not that far away from a national health system. “
No, the bills are the same, the seed of which is in the Medicare program. Back in the day when reimbursement was a simple percentage of charges. Medicare decreed that there shall be one schedule of charges. As a result, hospitals have no discretion on charges. There is another mechanism—contractual allowances—which keep the books balanced—in many respects, it does amount to the same thing, except in this one facet. There is a hole—if you make more than the cut-off for the low-income programs and don’t have insurance, then the full force of the “one size fits all” charge system fall squarely upon the patient, unalloyed by any “contractual allowance.”
However, the surge in charges has its root in the old Medicare / Medicaid reimbursement systems—providers were paid a percentage of charges, so, canny creatures they, they upped their charges. The biggest problem is that parts of the system have changed and others have not, creating some bureaucratic and financial mismatches.
Comrade Stalin: “I wouldn’t advocate central planning, but I think that price controls and a minimum wage are right in very specific circumstances.”
Price controls don’t work—the structural problems in the California energy market—an unregulated wholesale market and a regulated retail market—proved that. It is irrational to expect a supplier to continue selling product at a loss—in one sense, Enron was inevitable.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 01:03 PMSammy: “Despite all that, I agree entirely that planes are dreary dull, the cattle trucks of the 21st Century, that trains are great and that US healthcare is crap. Not so much because it’s a privately funded one per se (because, in fact, around half of US health spending comes from the state), but because American primary care is appallingly poor, tending to overprescribe for minor or imaginary ailments and underdiagnose serious conditions.”
Which, obviously, explains why patients hop the border from Canada and even fly in from Britain for treatment here in the United States, although some costs conscious Britons have taken to India as a viable alternative. Both of these facts would suggest that there is something wrong with the vaunted British and Canadian models. When patients with means flee the system, paying full freight for treatments they could get heavily subsidized in their native countries, I would say that is a fair indication of which system is “crap,” Sammy.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 01:21 PMWhich, obviously, explains why patients hop the border from Canada and even fly in from Britain for treatment here in the United States
We are talking about tiny numbers of people travelling from the UK to the US for medical treatment. And no (that’s zero) people travelling from the UK to the USA for primary care, which is what I was talking about.
If you’re unfortunate enough to have an extremely rare condition which will kill you without some cutting-edge, experimental technique and you have a lot of money to pay for it, the US leads the world.
However, if you’re most people, the US healthcare system is expensive and crap. US primary care is laughably bad. With weak to non-existent conflict of interest rules in most states, general practitioners in the US seem to spend their time encouraging their patients to take medication for minor ailments and fantasy ailments, which the GPs get a kickback for prescribing.
Meanwhile, those same GPs are piss-poor at detecting early signs of big killer vascular diseases and cancers. Which is why too many Americans die too young.
When patients with means flee the system, paying full freight for treatments they could get heavily subsidized in their native countries, I would say that is a fair indication of which system is “crap,” Sammy.
I’d say a system that costs its citizens more than that in any other developed country, while at the same time seeing those same citizens die younger than in any other developed country can fairly count as crap. That’s not to say the NHS is perfect, but I don’t see how the US model is any recipe for improvement.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 02:34 PMSammy: “If you’re unfortunate enough to have an extremely rare condition which will kill you without some cutting-edge, experimental technique and you have a lot of money to pay for it, the US leads the world. “
No, if you’re unfortunate to have a condition such that your expected lifespan is shorter than the waiting list, you start looking about for other options, cutting edge / experiment treatment not being a part of the equations.
Besides, your premise is false on the face—the US healthcare industry isn’t a “system” to begin with, so all you efforts to treat it a some monolithic, homogenous entity begins with a false assumption.
Sammy: “However, if you’re most people, the US healthcare system is expensive and crap.”
**Dread pulls out and checks insurance card**
$5 co-pays… I’m crushed.
Likewise, in one sense, the US healthcare industry subsidizes the rest of the world, in the form of research, developing new treatments, educating foreign doctors in our intern and residents programs and the like.
Sammy: “Meanwhile, those same GPs are piss-poor at detecting early signs of big killer vascular diseases and cancers. Which is why too many Americans die too young. “
I would like to see some support for this, as this flies in the face of all of my experiences, both personally and professionally. This sounds more like a broad sweeping generalization out a Chick comic-book.
Sammy: “I’d say a system that costs its citizens more than that in any other developed country, while at the same time seeing those same citizens die younger than in any other developed country can fairly count as crap.”
Life expectancies, from the World factbook, 2007 est. Columns are overall, male, female, in that order.
United Kingdom 78.7 76.23 81.3
European Union 78.7 75.6 82
United States 78 75.15 80.97
Republic of Ireland 77.9 75.27 80.7Not a whole hell of a lot of difference, in partical terms. Were Americans dropping like flies, as you imply, I would expect to see a far greater difference in life expectancies, beyond a year, give or take. The numbers don’t bear out your spin, Sammy.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 03:04 PMDread Cthulhu
I’m always amused by these ‘experts’ on the various failings of the US who have not the slightest real life experience of the US. Or those who go on about how wonderful the French system is without ever having lived under it. Well having direct personal experience of the US, UK and Irish health care systems, and my immediate family having experienced the French system in all its glory, I’ll take the US system any day.
I may add I have had to deal with the US system in all its varieties, insured, partially-insured, HMO, VA, uninsured etc. and in my many years of dealing with the US system, and hearing the stories of people I know in the US dealing with it, I have yet to hear any stories like those that seem to be a regular occurrence to people I know when dealing with the UK, Irish and French health care systems.
And having lived in the first big US city south of the border on the West Coast I can confirm that quite a few Canadians cross the border to get urgent medical treatment. They tend to be the second biggest group out of town patients, after those from Alaska.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 07:34 PMJ McConnell: “I’m always amused by these ‘experts’ on the various failings of the US who have not the slightest real life experience of the US.”
Why let fact get in the way of a good anti-American rant? Facts and support, apparently, only get in the way of a good sneer.
Somehow, despite having grossly incompetant diagnosticians, per Sammy Morse, US life expectancy is nearly the same as that of those systems most posters on this blog would have direct experience with and the EU blended expectancy. Now, I would be curious just how Sammy would rationalize this apparent paradox—if “too many Americans die too young,” why doesn’t it impact life expectancy?
J McConnell: “I may add I have had to deal with the US system in all its varieties, insured, partially-insured, HMO, VA, uninsured etc. and in my many years of dealing with the US system, and hearing the stories of people I know in the US dealing with it, I have yet to hear any stories like those that seem to be a regular occurrence to people I know when dealing with the UK, Irish and French health care systems. “
Most of what I know about UK and ROI healthcare comes from ROI and UK news sources—If I can’t believe the folks who have to muddle through those systems, who *SHOULD* I believe? Sammy, whose information sounds like it comes from a Jack Chick cartoon?
J McConnell: “And having lived in the first big US city south of the border on the West Coast I can confirm that quite a few Canadians cross the border to get urgent medical treatment. They tend to be the second biggest group out of town patients, after those from Alaska. “
I’ve audited a number of facilities just north of the Border and its much the same—perhaps more so, given the attraction among some to drop their “anchor babies” within the United States.
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 07:55 PMWhilst on the subject of diagnosticians, a timely piece from the news…
“LONDON (May 7) - A man who spent his life savings after being told he had months to live is seeking compensation after doctors in Britain conceded they had got the diagnosis wrong.
John Brandrick, 62, was told two years ago that he had terminal pancreatic cancer. He decided to spend his remaining time in style, quitting his job and spending his savings on hotels, restaurants and holidays.
A year later, doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in southwest England revised their diagnosis: Brandrick was suffering from pancreatitis, a nonfatal ailment. “
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 08:08 PM“Most of what I know about UK and ROI healthcare comes from ROI and UK news sources”
Dread,
If you do this you are making an error of judgement as many stories in the UK press on the NHS suffer from political bias and of course the press does not report the millions of operations and births that go to plan. Most of the faults in the system are due to the NHS having been used as a political football by governments of left and right, which has resulted in the administration of the system being all over the place, and many administrative staff not knowing if they are coming or going.However the NHS really does have some very dedicated workers, if I god forbid suddenly became seriously ill whilst writing this post I would, from the time my partner made an emergency call, be in a hospital being treated within 1 hour if not less. The NHS works well in most departments, cancer treatment, due to Blairs funding input is now prompt and improving, the same goes for most serous illness and diseases. [It is especially excellent in treating aids patients etc]
But it is a massive system that covers every town and village in the UK, ambulance personal and their vehicles and paramedics, general practitioners who are based in all towns and most villages [and now also do small operations]. There are also NHS dentists, children under 16 get free dentistry under the NHS when they need it, as to do some vulnerable adults and people on low incomes. chiropody and similar treatments also come under the NHS, especially for the disabled and old folk.
The NHS also treats drug and alcohol addicts , to get some idea of the scale of the NHS, it is the largest employer in Europe.Yes it has problems still, but due to the importance of the NHS in the average persons psyche here, it is now impossible to sweep them under the carpet. Yes tragedies and misadministration and malpractice still go on within the NHS, as they do within the US system, but despite this it is still worth its wait in gold to most of us.
It is late and I have not done the NHS and those who work in it justice, but I have tried because I did not wish our cousins across the pond to get a distorted picture and no I do not work in the NHS ;)
Posted by on May 08, 2007 @ 10:31 PM**if I god forbid suddenly became seriously ill whilst writing this post I would, from the time my partner made an emergency call, be in a hospital being treated within 1 hour if not less.**
Mickhall it may come as complete shock to you but that happens to be the system in every developed country on the planet(where I happen to live which has minimal state health care I’d be in the hospital in ten minutes), yet most of the other nations seem to get by perfectly well without having state monopoly health care systems.
I have no doubt that many NHS staff are truly dedicated individuals but I also happen to know that many of them are lazy incompetent deadbeats who if they weren’t employed by a state run monopoly would have been sacked decades ago.
If the NHS is so marvellous why has no other country copied it?
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 12:35 AMHarry
Your really are the pits, you throw out childlike insults without backing them with facts. No where did I write that the NHS was marvelous, I stated clearly the “it has problems.” What I was trying to point out to Dread is that it has a special place in the psyche of most people who live in the UK, including those who live in the north of Ireland/NI.
In my opinion you totally discredited yourself on Iraq, when you hectored us in much the same ill-informed manner as you have now done on the NHS, which is clearly an institution that you understand absolutely nothing about. You are also a liar, as you known full well whilst in the US you may well be taken by emergency services to a hospital, however unless it is publicly funded or operates a charity system you will not get treatment beyond a sticking plaster, without providing details of your insurance, employers insurance program or visa card.
Finally read what I write and then critique it by all means, but do not fabricate, not once have I suggested the UK health system is better than any other EU country, as it is not, but what I do know is it is far superior to that of the USA in that all citizens have first rate health care for all diseases and illnesses at the point of need, where-as, the USA, the richest nation in the world seems unable to provide this for its people.
Still as long as their are brown nosers and uncaring creeps like you about, a health care system which benefits the rich and discriminates against the less so, will carry on ripping the American people off.
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 11:05 AMmickhall: “If you do this you are making an error of judgement as many stories in the UK press on the NHS suffer from political bias and of course the press does not report the millions of operations and births that go to plan.”
So does the American press to the American healthcare industry, mickhall, so its a push on that front. That said, they also do provide an local eye and report accurately enough on things when they go poorly. Likewise, given our previous discussion, I wonder how much of your perceived “bias” in the press is the simple fact they are reporting news that does not support your political wants and desires.
mickhall: “The NHS works well in most departments, cancer treatment, due to Blairs funding input is now prompt and improving, the same goes for most serous illness and diseases.”
I am sure that is of great comfort to those who have had to seek treatment elsewhere due to long waiting lists and, in the case of Mr. Brandrick, those who have been harmed by their occasional incompetence.
mickhall: “There are also NHS dentists, children under 16 get free dentistry under the NHS when they need it, as to do some vulnerable adults and people on low incomes. chiropody and similar treatments also come under the NHS, especially for the disabled and old folk. “
Which is why each and every British smile is a glory to behold, right, Mick? I would not tout the NHS’ successes at dentistry, insofar as the empirical / anecdotal evidence—that what I know I’ve seen with mine own eyes --tells me you’re full of malarky on this point.
mickhall: “Yes it has problems still, but due to the importance of the NHS in the average persons psyche here, it is now impossible to sweep them under the carpet.”
It does, however, lead to grandly delusional bits of misinformation as to the programs relative efficacy, as evidenced by Sammy’s misinformed screed.
mickhall: “Yes tragedies and misadministration and malpractice still go on within the NHS, as they do within the US system, but despite this it is still worth its wait in gold to most of us. “
Freudian slip, mickhall?
mickhall: “It is late and I have not done the NHS and those who work in it justice, but I have tried because I did not wish our cousins across the pond to get a distorted picture”
It can’t be any worse than the cartoon vision some have of US healthcare.
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 11:54 AMmickhall: “Your really are the pits, you throw out childlike insults without backing them with facts.”
Actually, mickhall, has hasn’t. What he has done is express his perceptions of the topic at hand, just as Sammy did, yet you see fit to let his unsupported sweeping generalities slide…
mickhall: “You are also a liar, as you known full well whilst in the US you may well be taken by emergency services to a hospital, however unless it is publicly funded or operates a charity system you will not get treatment beyond a sticking plaster, without providing details of your insurance, employers insurance program or visa card. “
Patently false, mickhall… So, in the spirit of the topic, I would commend you to “physician, heal thyself.” Your knowledge is woefully inaccurate.
mickhall: “but what I do know is it is far superior to that of the USA in that all citizens have first rate health care for all diseases and illnesses at the point of need, where-as, the USA, the richest nation in the world seems unable to provide this for its people. “
Which, strangely enough, seems to have no significant impact in the life expectancy rates…
mickhall: “Still as long as their are brown nosers and uncaring creeps like you about, a health care system which benefits the rich and discriminates against the less so, will carry on ripping the American people off.”
As I said, physician, heal thyself. Your one-eyed view of the issue at hand is showing. I know, as a matter of fact—audit results, as a matter of fact, that things are not as you describe.
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 12:04 PMDread,
Just a couple of quick points, I used the NHS dentistry example simply to point out how far the reach of the NHS stretches in the UK, in fact most people see a non NHS, private dentist if they are of working age, although the legacy of poor teeth had as much to do with diet and a lack of fluoride in the water over here until the 1970s and later, or so it is claimed.
Your partially wrong about the news not supporting my politics here, as I oppose the Blair government and one of his main platforms has been support for the NHS, but I will give credit where it is due rather than join the heard, as he has imo a very poor record against him without having to make additional failures up.
I am aware of the short comings in the NHS having been involved in a number of campaigns to keep hospitals and emergency service departments open down the years, but I belong to that generation who were born just as the NHS was founded by my parents generation; and understand the sheer hardships they faced before it came into being.
I just feel that the state does run some things better than the private sector, not many but some, although today the NHS is moving over to something similar to its European counterpart with the state proving the infrastructure and the private sector much of the detail. [so to speak] Although free at point of need is still sacrosanct
As to the US health system, I am sure you are correct in that it is not as bleak as it is sometimes painted in the EU press, and in truth the lack of a public health care system in the US does give European lefties like me an opportunity to put the boot in.
Hell we are only human ;)
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 12:22 PMmickhall: “As to the US health system, I am sure you are correct in that it is not as bleak as it is sometimes painted in the EU press, and in truth the lack of a public health care system in the US does give European lefties like me an opportunity to put the boot in. “
All it does is highlight the level of ignorance some European lefties posses on matters outside their own states, mickhall.
As I mentioned to Comrade Stalin, I work in healthcare finance. Specifically, I audit hospitals as a part the Federal government’s (mostly) old age national healthcare system. I say mostly becase, as I also noted previously, the gov’t has a bad habit of tinkering—Medicare covers a few other things, such as ESRD treatments, regardless of the patient’s age.
As an auditor, I review both financial and service related reports. One includes Medicaid days (yes, I know I audit MediCARE, but somehow MediCAID numbers were made a part of MediCARE reimbursement formulas… again, politicians tinker… ). I know, as a matter of fact, that your ignorant smear vis-a-vis American emergency rooms is just precisely that, an ignorant smear.
A facility received a patient via the Emergency room, specifially an illegal alien. Patient was admitted inpatient, comatose and unresponsive, but alive. Patient has been on a respirator FIVE YEARS, with intermittant (at best) Medicaid coverage (politician’s tinker, waivers come in and out of favor...). Patient cannot legally be discharged, even to a nursing facility, which is really all this patient really needs at this point.
The next time you feel the need to “put the boot in,” check your facts. It saves those who know better a great deal of typing.
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 12:42 PMOh, Sammy and mickhall—if I seem particularly cross, it is simply that people who don’t know what they are talking about are presuming to correct me about what I know, as a matter of professional knowledge and direct, repeated experience, to be fact.
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 01:07 PMDread Cthulhu - 15% of GDP spent on healthcare in the US as opposed to 9&#xis;h in Britain and France. Three times the rate of people on kidney dialysis in the US than the UK, around twice the level of diabetes. And your US-EU comparison on life expectancy includes Bulgaria, Romania and Poland and still the EU comes up trumps. Why not, given the subject of the article, compare the US with ‘failing’, ‘sclerotic’ France with a life expectancy of 80.59 years despite plenty of wine, fags and paté de fois gras?
I work in a similar field to you and am not ignorant of the strengths and weaknesses of the US model. In general, the US produces relatively poor health outcomes despite mammoth expenditure and primary care is (sorry) crap leaving a efficient and often world-beating but expensive tertiary care providers to pick up the pieces.
I’m neither a knee-jerk anti-American nor opposed to free markets (quite the reverse) but no country which is even moderately developed operates a free healthcare market and the American model is no Claudia Schiffer. Canadians may travel to the US for hospital treatment, but Americans buy their drugs from Canada in massive numbers. Hardly a sign of the world’s best system.
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 01:14 PMSammy: “15% of GDP spent on healthcare in the US as opposed to 9&#xis;h in Britain and France. Three times the rate of people on kidney dialysis in the US than the UK, around twice the level of diabetes.”
and what is the impact that the government in the UK is in a position to “control” the cost of healthcare via decree? As for the latter, you are attributing to doctors matters which include a personal component (diet, excercise, etc.) You attribute to a single variable without considering alternate hypothesis, such as differences in diet, excercise, etc. Likewise, you want to compare small (UK, France) systems to a healthcare appartus that is not properly a system. These are just the immediate flaws in your comparison.
Sammy: “And your US-EU comparison on life expectancy includes Bulgaria, Romania and Poland and still the EU comes up trumps.”
It is very likely statistically insignificant and disproves your thesis, Sammy. To claim that a variance of less than a year is somehow proof that the European system is superior is a bold claim on a mighty thin difference.
Sammy: “Why not, given the subject of the article, compare the US with ‘failing’, ‘sclerotic’ France with a life expectancy of 80.59 years despite plenty of wine, fags and paté de fois gras?”
A) Because by the time we got around to arguing healthcare, we had begun drifting away from France and into socialism in general, B) to the best of my knowledge, you’re not French, and C) Better comparability on size, broader acknowledgement of regional variables (EU has Eastern Europe, US has the South...)
To ask you your question of you, why does not the UK adopt the French model if it is so demonstrably superior?
Sammy: “In general, the US produces relatively poor health outcomes despite mammoth expenditure and primary care is (sorry) crap leaving a efficient and often world-beating but expensive tertiary care providers to pick up the pieces. “
A thesis not borne out by the facts and statistics, Sammy. If outcomes are so poor, why are life expectancies so similar? Likewise, I would caution you that a great many things beyond simple primary care “roll-up” into healthcare costs.
Sammy: “I’m neither a knee-jerk anti-American nor opposed to free markets (quite the reverse) but no country which is even moderately developed operates a free healthcare market and the American model is no Claudia Schiffer.”
Never claimed it was… I merely point out that it’s not Phyllis Diller or Dame Edna, as you seem to be claiming.
Sammy: “Canadians may travel to the US for hospital treatment, but Americans buy their drugs from Canada in massive numbers. Hardly a sign of the world’s best system. “
Which is more a function of the fact that drug companies, as a rule, charge different nations different prices. The United States, as a rule, pays full freight, whilst other nations pay a lesser price on a per pill basis. As a result of this policy on the part of the drug companies, yes, Americans pay more. That said, drug prices are not a function of the state in the United States, since the state does not produce drugs nor, as a rule, market them. There is also some bargaining power when, presumably, you’re buying for a nation, rather than a hospital or even hospital system.
You’re logic is fuzzy and your attributing results to single variables that are likely to have a casual, rather than causal, relationship. Also, point of fact, I have not chest thumped and said the US system is the ultimate in healthcare. I have merely stated it is not the Dickens-esque ogre that some ignoramuses would paint it as.
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 01:47 PM
