ObamaCare: Britain to denationalize it's system

[_Molok]

There are other things that the people have decided would best be managed by government - like education.

LOL.

[_Molok]

On another note, would someone who supports government run health care please explain why it is a good idea to trust the United States government to run our health care system. Considering our government's track record of running everything it touches directly into the ground, I'm not feeling too confident here.

[_Malcolm]

Health care in the UK, particularly England, has been something of a noose around tax-payers necks for decades. The proposed system from the new coalition Government's think tank seems like a good idea and could give a new freedom for patients, and also give GP's some say in their patients treatment.
At present, a GP refers his or her patient to a local hospital and then depending upon the facilities at that hospital, a patient receives whatever that hospital can provide. Under the new proposals, Foundation Trusts should be able to access funds from the business sector who would to some extent support them and offer better facilities, treatments.

The problem is that to date, all of this is just a White Paper ( a statement of Government intent) and it can take years to come to fruition.
The White Paper is put before experts, both medical and business, then it is looked at by treasury officials, trade unions, public consultation and then is tossed around the House of Commons for three readings.
After that it goes to Committee Stages and then finally to the House of Lords, who while having no say in matters of finance, can still slow it down while they assess it, again three readings. Proposed bills like this could take up the whole life of a government and then be tossed aside at the next election.
Certainly, it is a good start and high time that individuals took some responsibility for their own health care. The more prudent already have
access to private medical insurance with BUPA and suchlike. Under the current system, pharmaceutical companies are holding the NHS to ransom with some medicines being unaffordable to hospitals or the general public.

[_SoHo]

On another note, would someone who supports government run health care please explain why it is a good idea to trust the United States government to run our health care system. Considering our government's track record of running everything it touches directly into the ground, I'm not feeling too confident here.

Yup, it's a tough one. I grew up north of the border and have strong views on the limitations of a central, socialized system. Knowing that affordable preventative care would actually reduce costs overall, I'd love to see a system that could accommodate that, control costs and still keep health care private. While I don't see the doom and gloom of the current legislation, I don't think it will accomplish its goals - and may likely do more harm. However, comparing it to the British system, as was done in the op, is a bit over-the-top.

[_moksha]

On another note, would someone who supports government run health care please explain why it is a good idea to trust the United States government to run our health care system. Considering our government's track record of running everything it touches directly into the ground, I'm not feeling too confident here.

Good point, why not trusted names like Enron, Goldman-Sachs and Halliburton running the show?

[_Molok]

On another note, would someone who supports government run health care please explain why it is a good idea to trust the United States government to run our health care system. Considering our government's track record of running everything it touches directly into the ground, I'm not feeling too confident here.

Good point, why not trusted names like Enron, Goldman-Sachs and Halliburton running the show?

You do realize two of those companies were affiliated with the government right? Or were you trying to help my point?

[_Molok]

Or better yet, moksha, how about you name a successful government run institution, and ill name a successful private company. Let's see who runs out of names first!

[_krose]

On another note, would someone who supports government run health care please explain why it is a good idea to trust the United States government to run our health care system. Considering our government's track record of running everything it touches directly into the ground, I'm not feeling too confident here.

What, specifically, has been run directly into the ground? Sounds like hyperbole to me.

Or better yet, moksha, how about you name a successful government run institution, and ill name a successful private company. Let's see who runs out of names first!

First, to be fair, given the vast difference in sheer numbers, you would have to judge by percentages. We know that somewhere around 90% of businesses fail in the first year, so that's not a really high water mark to reach.

Second, how do you judge whether a government "institution" is successful, given that their purpose is never to make a profit, but to provide a service? What are the criteria? Just how you feel about them?

Comparing entities with drastically different reasons for existing would be a silly endeavor. You can't call the military, police forces and fire departments failures because they fail to make a profit, any more than you can call Microsoft a failure because they fail to help keep poor people from starving.

[_Molok]

On another note, would someone who supports government run health care please explain why it is a good idea to trust the United States government to run our health care system. Considering our government's track record of running everything it touches directly into the ground, I'm not feeling too confident here.

What, specifically, has been run directly into the ground? Sounds like hyperbole to me.

Off the top of my head : Social Security, Medicaid / Medicare, The Post Office, Amtrak.

Or better yet, moksha, how about you name a successful government run institution, and ill name a successful private company. Let's see who runs out of names first!

First, to be fair, given the vast difference in sheer numbers, you would have to judge by percentages. We know that somewhere around 90% of businesses fail in the first year, so that's not a really high water mark to reach.

Second, how do you judge whether a government "institution" is successful, given that their purpose is never to make a profit, but to provide a service? What are the criteria? Just how you feel about them?

Comparing entities with drastically different reasons for existing would be a silly endeavor. You can't call the military, police forces and fire departments failures because they fail to make a profit, any more than you can call Microsoft a failure because they fail to help keep poor people from starving.

You make some good points here. Rather than getting into an argument about how to compare government run businesses with private ones, I'll just give a reason I don't want the government to be in charge of health care. A big reason I am opposed to the government running health care is the size of the government. As anyone who has ever been in a DMV can attest, dealing with a bureaucracy can be a nightmare. In my opinion the unwieldy nature of the U.S. government does not lend itself well to a health care system. Of course, it's not like dealing with insurance companies is a smooth, easy process either. I would never deny that there are plenty of problems that need to be addressed to make our health care system more simple, and more efficient, but frankly I shudder to think of the bureaucratic nightmare it will become with the government is running the show.