Regular readers will know that in the past year, I embarked on a genuinely life-altering journey. I emigrated to the United States, got married, and now make my home in North Carolina. I love this country
A harsh way to put this would be to ask if the current debates about health care are really just skirmishes about human greed and selfishness, rather than serious discussions about how to ensure that no one goes without.
This is actually an interesting question. Is this debate really about greed or altruism? Are the people who are clamoring for the government to provide them health care being greedy or altruistic? Or, to put it another way, what if an American policymaker suggested that the government would provide every American with a free annual check-up, necessary vaccines and basic first aid. However, any other treatment or therapy would be paid for out of pocket because, as health care is a human right, we must first see to it that every human on the planet gets this same level of care before Americans get additional "free" care. How do you think these supposedly altruistic advocates for universal health care would react? Is this really about ensuring that "no one goes without" or about ensuring "I have access to health care"?
It's easy to be altruistic when one is being altruistic with other people's time and money or when one is the primary beneficiary of the altruism.
In the light of the frequent vilification of the "socialist" (or worse) British health care system on this blog, it may be worth remembering that it was a prominent American Christian (Reinhold Niebuhr) who described the National Health Service of the UK as the only case he knew of where a Gospel imperative had been incorporated in the public policy of any state. And despite Eric's comment that "It's easy to be altruistic when one is being altruistic with other people's time and money or when one is the primary beneficiary of the altruism" the people of the UK willingly pay taxes (i.e. their own money) to maintain this.
About the HIV thing. First of all, the United States allows those with HIV to seek asylum here if they are mistreated on account of their disease. Further, they may get a waiver if they can prove their health is sufficiently stable. Seems a reasonable accommodation to me, and one that will become even more stringent should a nationalized health care system become law.
With regard to the requirement to see a United States doctor, we are hardly unique in that regard. Not everyone here emigrates from a country with good doctors.
I'm not an expert on how the British system is designed, but the plan being proposed by President Obama and the Congress, according to them, would not result in any tax increase except for those at the very top of the income scales. So in our case, very few people would be paying for this out of their own taxes. So it would be the top 1-5% or so and future generations who would be paying for health care reform, not current taxpayers.
A harsh way to put this would be to ask if the current debates about health care are really just skirmishes about human greed and selfishness, rather than serious discussions about how to ensure that no one goes without.
This is actually an interesting question. Is this debate really about greed or altruism? Are the people who are clamoring for the government to provide them health care being greedy or altruistic? Or, to put it another way, what if an American policymaker suggested that the government would provide every American with a free annual check-up, necessary vaccines and basic first aid. However, any other treatment or therapy would be paid for out of pocket because, as health care is a human right, we must first see to it that every human on the planet gets this same level of care before Americans get additional "free" care. How do you think these supposedly altruistic advocates for universal health care would react? Is this really about ensuring that "no one goes without" or about ensuring "I have access to health care"?
It's easy to be altruistic when one is being altruistic with other people's time and money or when one is the primary beneficiary of the altruism.
In the light of the frequent vilification of the "socialist" (or worse) British health care system on this blog, it may be worth remembering that it was a prominent American Christian (Reinhold Niebuhr) who described the National Health Service of the UK as the only case he knew of where a Gospel imperative had been incorporated in the public policy of any state. And despite Eric's comment that "It's easy to be altruistic when one is being altruistic with other people's time and money or when one is the primary beneficiary of the altruism" the people of the UK willingly pay taxes (i.e. their own money) to maintain this.
About the HIV thing. First of all, the United States allows those with HIV to seek asylum here if they are mistreated on account of their disease. Further, they may get a waiver if they can prove their health is sufficiently stable. Seems a reasonable accommodation to me, and one that will become even more stringent should a nationalized health care system become law.
With regard to the requirement to see a United States doctor, we are hardly unique in that regard. Not everyone here emigrates from a country with good doctors.
I'm not an expert on how the British system is designed, but the plan being proposed by President Obama and the Congress, according to them, would not result in any tax increase except for those at the very top of the income scales. So in our case, very few people would be paying for this out of their own taxes. So it would be the top 1-5% or so and future generations who would be paying for health care reform, not current taxpayers.
Sorry, Treefarmer, your observant dentist friend drew the wrong conclusion from the state of British teeth (he - or she - is also slightly misinformed) . They are, in fact, an argument in favour of "socialised medicine". The reason is that dentistry in Britain does not operate on the same basis as other healthcare. It is, in fact, "part-privatised" (in other words closer to the model with which your friend works). Except for those who have special needs (which means the very young, the aged and pregnant women) all treatment has to be paid for, even by those who are "nHS patients". A couple of weeks ago I had to cough up the equivalent of $100 (more or less) for a simple scale and polish. Had I been a private patient it would have cost me a lot more. Most British teeth are not well-cared for because a visit to the dentist costs too much, not because the level of care is low.
Sorry, Treefarmer, your observant dentist friend drew the wrong conclusion from the state of British teeth (he - or she - is also slightly misinformed) . They are, in fact, an argument in favour of "socialised medicine". The reason is that dentistry in Britain does not operate on the same basis as other healthcare. It is, in fact, "part-privatised" (in other words closer to the model with which your friend works). Except for those who have special needs (which means the very young, the aged and pregnant women) all treatment has to be paid for, even by those who are "nHS patients". A couple of weeks ago I had to cough up the equivalent of $100 (more or less) for a simple scale and polish. Had I been a private patient it would have cost me a lot more. Most British teeth are not well-cared for because a visit to the dentist costs too much, not because the level of care is low.
My dentist who does very good quality work and charges higher prices for it asked me: "Did you ever notice that people from England have bad-looking teeth? That's because they have socialized medicine. The dentists give them a level of care based upon the lousy compensation for services. But people who tell the dentist they will pay more get the service they want and expect."
However, "rich" people like me are maxed out on taxation. The problem with socialism is that socialists eventually run out of other people's money. Remember Evita and what she did to her country?
My dentist who does very good quality work and charges higher prices for it asked me: "Did you ever notice that people from England have bad-looking teeth? That's because they have socialized medicine. The dentists give them a level of care based upon the lousy compensation for services. But people who tell the dentist they will pay more get the service they want and expect."
However, "rich" people like me are maxed out on taxation. The problem with socialism is that socialists eventually run out of other people's money. Remember Evita and what she did to her country?
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
A harsh way to put this would be to ask if the current debates about health care are really just skirmishes about human greed and selfishness, rather than serious discussions about how to ensure that no one goes without.
This is actually an interesting question. Is this debate really about greed or altruism? Are the people who are clamoring for the government to provide them health care being greedy or altruistic? Or, to put it another way, what if an American policymaker suggested that the government would provide every American with a free annual check-up, necessary vaccines and basic first aid. However, any other treatment or therapy would be paid for out of pocket because, as health care is a human right, we must first see to it that every human on the planet gets this same level of care before Americans get additional "free" care. How do you think these supposedly altruistic advocates for universal health care would react? Is this really about ensuring that "no one goes without" or about ensuring "I have access to health care"?
It's easy to be altruistic when one is being altruistic with other people's time and money or when one is the primary beneficiary of the altruism.
A harsh way to put this would be to ask if the current debates about health care are really just skirmishes about human greed and selfishness, rather than serious discussions about how to ensure that no one goes without.
This is actually an interesting question. Is this debate really about greed or altruism? Are the people who are clamoring for the government to provide them health care being greedy or altruistic? Or, to put it another way, what if an American policymaker suggested that the government would provide every American with a free annual check-up, necessary vaccines and basic first aid. However, any other treatment or therapy would be paid for out of pocket because, as health care is a human right, we must first see to it that every human on the planet gets this same level of care before Americans get additional "free" care. How do you think these supposedly altruistic advocates for universal health care would react? Is this really about ensuring that "no one goes without" or about ensuring "I have access to health care"?
It's easy to be altruistic when one is being altruistic with other people's time and money or when one is the primary beneficiary of the altruism.
In the light of the frequent vilification of the "socialist" (or worse) British health care system on this blog, it may be worth remembering that it was a prominent American Christian (Reinhold Niebuhr) who described the National Health Service of the UK as the only case he knew of where a Gospel imperative had been incorporated in the public policy of any state. And despite Eric's comment that "It's easy to be altruistic when one is being altruistic with other people's time and money or when one is the primary beneficiary of the altruism" the people of the UK willingly pay taxes (i.e. their own money) to maintain this.
In the light of the frequent vilification of the "socialist" (or worse) British health care system on this blog, it may be worth remembering that it was a prominent American Christian (Reinhold Niebuhr) who described the National Health Service of the UK as the only case he knew of where a Gospel imperative had been incorporated in the public policy of any state. And despite Eric's comment that "It's easy to be altruistic when one is being altruistic with other people's time and money or when one is the primary beneficiary of the altruism" the people of the UK willingly pay taxes (i.e. their own money) to maintain this.
About the HIV thing. First of all, the United States allows those with HIV to seek asylum here if they are mistreated on account of their disease. Further, they may get a waiver if they can prove their health is sufficiently stable. Seems a reasonable accommodation to me, and one that will become even more stringent should a nationalized health care system become law.
With regard to the requirement to see a United States doctor, we are hardly unique in that regard. Not everyone here emigrates from a country with good doctors.
About the HIV thing. First of all, the United States allows those with HIV to seek asylum here if they are mistreated on account of their disease. Further, they may get a waiver if they can prove their health is sufficiently stable. Seems a reasonable accommodation to me, and one that will become even more stringent should a nationalized health care system become law.
With regard to the requirement to see a United States doctor, we are hardly unique in that regard. Not everyone here emigrates from a country with good doctors.
I'm not an expert on how the British system is designed, but the plan being proposed by President Obama and the Congress, according to them, would not result in any tax increase except for those at the very top of the income scales. So in our case, very few people would be paying for this out of their own taxes. So it would be the top 1-5% or so and future generations who would be paying for health care reform, not current taxpayers.
I'm not an expert on how the British system is designed, but the plan being proposed by President Obama and the Congress, according to them, would not result in any tax increase except for those at the very top of the income scales. So in our case, very few people would be paying for this out of their own taxes. So it would be the top 1-5% or so and future generations who would be paying for health care reform, not current taxpayers.
My dentist who does very good quality work and charges higher prices for it asked me: "Did you ever notice that people from England have bad-looking teeth? That's because they have socialized medicine. The dentists give them a level of care based upon the lousy compensation for services. But people who tell the dentist they will pay more get the service they want and expect."
However, "rich" people like me are maxed out on taxation. The problem with socialism is that socialists eventually run out of other people's money. Remember Evita and what she did to her country?
My dentist who does very good quality work and charges higher prices for it asked me: "Did you ever notice that people from England have bad-looking teeth? That's because they have socialized medicine. The dentists give them a level of care based upon the lousy compensation for services. But people who tell the dentist they will pay more get the service they want and expect."
However, "rich" people like me are maxed out on taxation. The problem with socialism is that socialists eventually run out of other people's money. Remember Evita and what she did to her country?
Sorry, Treefarmer, your observant dentist friend drew the wrong conclusion from the state of British teeth (he - or she - is also slightly misinformed) . They are, in fact, an argument in favour of "socialised medicine". The reason is that dentistry in Britain does not operate on the same basis as other healthcare. It is, in fact, "part-privatised" (in other words closer to the model with which your friend works). Except for those who have special needs (which means the very young, the aged and pregnant women) all treatment has to be paid for, even by those who are "nHS patients". A couple of weeks ago I had to cough up the equivalent of $100 (more or less) for a simple scale and polish. Had I been a private patient it would have cost me a lot more. Most British teeth are not well-cared for because a visit to the dentist costs too much, not because the level of care is low.
Sorry, Treefarmer, your observant dentist friend drew the wrong conclusion from the state of British teeth (he - or she - is also slightly misinformed) . They are, in fact, an argument in favour of "socialised medicine". The reason is that dentistry in Britain does not operate on the same basis as other healthcare. It is, in fact, "part-privatised" (in other words closer to the model with which your friend works). Except for those who have special needs (which means the very young, the aged and pregnant women) all treatment has to be paid for, even by those who are "nHS patients". A couple of weeks ago I had to cough up the equivalent of $100 (more or less) for a simple scale and polish. Had I been a private patient it would have cost me a lot more. Most British teeth are not well-cared for because a visit to the dentist costs too much, not because the level of care is low.
