President Reagan speaks about Socialized medicine.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Are people who criticize the British system even aware that there is a private system there as well?

Are you aware that the private system has yet to experience a single death?

Maybe cuz they do mostly knee replacements?

[HAL 9000 96]

proof?

who? me?

No.

At least you try to rationalize according to your beliefs. Although I did remind you that telepathy and politics don't go well- at least yet.

If you set a wheel upright on a empty street that is on a hill you don't need telepathy to know what that tire will do.

So you see a hill... interesting...

I do and it leads right into to a busy intersection. Poor tire!

That's what you get for first thinking the street is empty without considering the streets it intersects.

And in the bills thus far, the street you're on has signs that you're not reading.

Oh trust me I am reading the signs and thats why I insist on not letting my tire go down that hill.

Its paved. Use a car. They have breaks.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Are people who criticize the British system even aware that there is a private system there as well?

Are you aware that the private system has yet to experience a single death?

Maybe cuz they do mostly knee replacements?

Do you deny that the NHS loses patients every day? EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!!

[natty bumppo 297]

I can keep digging and find more information about the nature of debts between the UK and US at the end of the WWII. Can we agree the UK decided to rebuild and also institute NHC due to a generous loan/agreements with the US that gave them access to spendable funds? I don't know if this helped finance NHC or not ... I'll let others weigh in on this .

Meanwhile ... I shamelessly digressed. Back to Topic...

I'm not sure you can say that the NHS was established as a direct result of the US's largesse following the war. Large sections of Britain (and indeed much of Europe) was in shambles, but health care for all citizens was a major priority because it was seen as crucial to the nation's recovery.

I've yet to meet a Brit who thinks the NHS should be dismantled in favor of a U.S-style system. Complaining about the NHS is a national sport--and Lord knows the Brits are champion complainers (I mean that with fondness)--but nearly everyone is grateful for the system.

Are people who criticize the British system even aware that there is a private system there as well?

it probably didn't hurt to have lots of material at a discounted rate and a low interest loan on top of that. it would make for an interesting research task to determine what if any help this was for the UK.

I do know there is a private system as well. when my old company decided to discontinue paying for this "extra" benefit for my UK coworkers thereby moving them to NHC ... well we didn't need phones to hear the displeasure in their voices from across the pond.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... we didn't need phones to hear the displeasure in their voices from across the pond.

They're that loud? Geez.

[HAL 9000 96]

Or, it will not. I tend to read what's actually written.

OK then READ THIS...It will be cheaper for employers to pay the 8% penalty than to provide their employees health care benefits. Believe me I have a business and I know how much it costs to provide so........

Show us what, exactly, is the penalty fee- 8% based on what, vs. the money you'd pay up- we need specifics to read since you want to get into details. It may be a case of you not picking a very competitive insurer for your employees.

There isn't a single proposal out there to socialize medicine in the US. Not one. But you seem to have fun attacking strawmen. Keep at it while the rest of the country focuses on real issues.

Where do you think Obama's health care plan would lead to, theres no reason for employers to provide insurance for there workers. If we go this route it will eventually become socialized.

The horror... the horror... It might lead to a rational system enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of developed nations... The horror... the horror... the horror...

Do you even know what it was we were debating? Let me give you a hint - what this reform bill would lead to, not if it was a good/bad idea. So I think in a way you unknowingly agreed with me... interesting. Stick with me kid and I will take you places.

Don't!!! he rides tires down hills instead of cars.

[natty bumppo 297]

... we didn't need phones to hear the displeasure in their voices from across the pond.

They're that loud? Geez.

yea ... they got so upset the phone lines melted. so they went low tech

[HAL 9000 96]

If there ever was a place and time for NHC do you honestly think that right now it that time to try and push this through, considering the economic state of this country

Great Britian began the NHS right after WWII, when their nation was on the verge of bankruptcy.

And after the U.S. had just forgiven them their huge debt to us.

What?

The UK made its final WWII-related payment to the US in December 2006. It was sort of a big story. It was seen as a loan w/ generous terms, but hardly debt forgiven. Where do you get your information?

From his usual source. That place you need a flashlight and mirror to see.

It was the end of 2006 when the UK transferred $84 million to the US Treasury for the final payment on debt used to finance WWII. Back in 1945 the US extended $4+ billion to the UK to prevent the UK from going into bankruptcy. It took 50years (6 of which a payment was skipped) for the UK to settle the debt. I think the loan was double the size of the UK economy at the time (maybe someone can confirm). There also appears to be debts owed to the US for WWI as well. There have been no repayments received since 1934 (due to an moratorium during the depression)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6215847.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm

more ...

"Britain received about $30 billion of goods — just over £7 billion atthe prevailing exchange rate — during the war years, in effect giftsfrom America. But in September 1945 the US abruptly announced an end tothe Lend-Lease programme, despite the need for large-scalereconstruction and with Britain on its knees economically."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle1264220.ece

I can keep digging and find more information about the nature of debts between the UK and US at the end of the WWII. Can we agree the UK decided to rebuild and also institute NHC due to a generous loan/agreements with the US that gave them access to spendable funds? I don't know if this helped finance NHC or not ... I'll let others weigh in on this .

Meanwhile ... I shamelessly digressed. Back to Topic...

If I am not mistaken, the US owes quite a bit more than this China at the moment and that debt didnt come about because of World War.

That has nothing to do with what were talking about, now you want to player hate on the states but can we but that aside for a moment and discuss this?

Calm down homeboy. That was someone else's tangent. Get on their case about it.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I'm not sure you can say that the NHS was established as a direct result of the US's largesse following the war. Large sections of Britain (and indeed much of Europe) was in shambles, but health care for all citizens was a major priority because it was seen as crucial to the nation's recovery.

To say this didnt help would be a lie, how significant this help was well that another debate. Lets not forget that this was all brought up because somebody eluded to that since Britian did it after world war II then theres no reason the USA cant do it. Bottom line its different countries, times and issues and this needs to be taken into consideration.

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

Don't you just love it when folks pluck information out the internet via google, knowing nothing about the sources...or is Txn really jewish

why do you hate jews?

[_Simpson_ 250]

Calm down homeboy. That was someone else's tangent. Get on their case about it.

Nobodys worked up over here sweet cheeks. To bring this up when were having this debate seems pointless and only takes away from the debate.

[DIARD 1]

Or, it will not. I tend to read what's actually written.

OK then READ THIS...It will be cheaper for employers to pay the 8% penalty than to provide their employees health care benefits. Believe me I have a business and I know how much it costs to provide so........

I am small business owner but the reason for providing/not providing healthcare is not because of cost. It is an incentive to bring in the best em-ployees for your business. Great employees raises the money the business makes. It pays for itself in this respect. Now if this bill provides a cost effective alternative for me to buy healthcare for my business, Im all for it.

[HAL 9000 96]

I can keep digging and find more information about the nature of debts between the UK and US at the end of the WWII. Can we agree the UK decided to rebuild and also institute NHC due to a generous loan/agreements with the US that gave them access to spendable funds? I don't know if this helped finance NHC or not ... I'll let others weigh in on this .

Meanwhile ... I shamelessly digressed. Back to Topic...

I'm not sure you can say that the NHS was established as a direct result of the US's largesse following the war. Large sections of Britain (and indeed much of Europe) was in shambles, but health care for all citizens was a major priority because it was seen as crucial to the nation's recovery.

I've yet to meet a Brit who thinks the NHS should be dismantled in favor of a U.S-style system. Complaining about the NHS is a national sport--and Lord knows the Brits are champion complainers (I mean that with fondness)--but nearly everyone is grateful for the system.

Are people who criticize the British system even aware that there is a private system there as well?

it probably didn't hurt to have lots of material at a discounted rate and a low interest loan on top of that. it would make for an interesting research task to determine what if any help this was for the UK.

I do know there is a private system as well. when my old company decided to discontinue paying for this "extra" benefit for my UK coworkers thereby moving them to NHC ... well we didn't need phones to hear the displeasure in their voices from across the pond.

Sounds like a fascinating job for someone's PhD thesis in Economics, if it hasn't been covered yet. A quick search turned up someone's course materials at ASU:

The "welfare state" and "nationalization" to 1951

1. Term coined by professor Alfred Zimmern in the 1930s to distinguish it from Hitler's "warfare state."
2. There are so many myths and US anxieties stirred about the welfare state that historians need to be as precise as possible about what it was and was not in Britain after World War II.
3. In 1946, the National Insurance and National Health Service Acts were passed, two mainstays of the welfare state.
4. National Insurance consolidated acts passed since the late 19th century, provided security against unemployment, sickness and disability benefits, maternity and death benefits, and payments to retired persons, widows, and orphans, paid for by weekly employee contributions supplemented by the National Exchequer. This was enhanced by the National Assistance Board to help those whose benefits fell below a specified minimum, which actually cost the British Government 11.3% of its overall budget in 1950, in contrast to 13.6% of its budget in 1938.
5. National Health went into effect in 1948, and within a year 95% of the British had signed up for it and 97% of the doctors participated. National Health became the most popular act Labour adopted, with bad health regarded as a social misfortune rather than a personal failure. Great strides were made in attacking widespread disease. Doctors were paid on the basis of the number of patients (2200 was the average per year); and the number of doctors in Britain increased from 36,500 in 1948 to 49,000 in 1958. Not just the working-class, but all were now covered and paid for specialists as well as GPs, and included free dental, eye care and prescriptions. The initial problem was with shortage of hospitals, equipment, and staff, not abuse of patients or doctors themselves.

Calm down homeboy. That was someone else's tangent. Get on their case about it.

Nobodys worked up over here sweet cheeks. To bring this up when were having this debate seems pointless and only takes away from the debate.

I think it adds to it. Stick around and you'll catch a whiff of the brownie I ate a while ago.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Calm down homeboy. That was someone else's tangent. Get on their case about it.

Nobodys worked up over here sweet cheeks. To bring this up when were having this debate seems pointless and only takes away from the debate.

Wait a second, I thought I was addressing DIARD and not Hal. Hal I ask what did his statement bring to the debate, it was irrelevant

[HAL 9000 96]

Or, it will not. I tend to read what's actually written.

OK then READ THIS...It will be cheaper for employers to pay the 8% penalty than to provide their employees health care benefits. Believe me I have a business and I know how much it costs to provide so........

I am small business owner but the reason for providing/not providing healthcare is not because of cost. It is an incentive to bring in the best em-ployees for your business. Great employees raises the money the business makes. It pays for itself in this respect. Now if this bill provides a cost effective alternative for me to buy healthcare for my business, Im all for it.

So you prefer better employees and higher productivity over increased profitability. I salute you!

Calm down homeboy. That was someone else's tangent. Get on their case about it.

Nobodys worked up over here sweet cheeks. To bring this up when were having this debate seems pointless and only takes away from the debate.

Wait a second, I thought I was addressing DIARD and not Hal. Hal I ask what did his statement bring to the debate, it was irrelevant

Yeah it was a tangent. A nice one... not one I'd consider totally irrelevant. Actually... quite appropriate considering the details involved.