Obama a liar about Obamacare, Berwick proves it

[barryr]

Obama said he doesn't believe in rationing healthcare and his healthbill won't do that, yet bypasess hearings to appoint a man to run Medicare who has stated he supports rationing of healthcare and government control, not to mention redistriuting of wealth, which Obama has stated himself supporting. Obama is a liar! He has no need to lie if felt the majority of this country wanted this, but he is going to do his best to see it happens anyway.


July 12, 2010
Health Care Rationing Obama Believes In
By Nat Hentoff

As a reporter, I do not use euphemisms - such as calling murderous terrorists "militants" or "activists." And as an American, I can exercise my First Amendment right to say plainly that President Obama is a liar with regard to our new health-care law, often referred to as Obamacare.

When a number of critics of Obamacare, including myself, warned that it would bring the rationing of treatments, medications and research into new procedures, the president said to the American Medical Association (June 15, 2009) that this rationing charge was a "fear tactic."

The next month, he said flat out: "I don't believe that government can or should run health care" (firstthings.com, May 31, 2010).

But in May of this year, the president nominated Dr. Donald Berwick, a professor at Harvard Medical School, to head Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) - the most powerful health-care position. As Hal Scherz underlines (RealClearPolitics.com, May 26): "CMS covers over 100 million Americans, has an annual $800 billion budget that is larger than the Defense Department's and is the second-largest insurance company in the world."

Unlike Obama, Berwick is enthusiastically, openly candid in his support of Britain's socialistic National Health Service. In a 2008 speech to British physicians, our new health czar said: "I am romantic about National Health Service. I love it (because it is) 'generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just.'"

That "just" National Health Care Service decides which care can be too costly for the government to pay. Its real-time decider of life-or-death outcomes is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Here is how "nicely" it works, described by Michael Tanner, senior fellow and health-care expert at the Cato Institute (where I, too, am a senior fellow):

"It acts as a comparative-effectiveness tool for the National Health Care Service, comparing various treatments and determining whether the benefits the patients receives - SUCH AS PROLONGED LIFE - are cost-efficient for the government" (lifenews.com, May 27).

So listen to our very own decider of how the Obama administration will lower our national debt by cutting inefficient health-care costs. After declaring his ardent romantic attachment to the British system, Berwick said: "All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country." He will, of course, be too busy to attend the funerals of the sacrificial Americans whose lives - not only those of the elderly - may thereby be cut short.

Tanner makes a grim point as Berwick rediscovers the romance of government cost-effectiveness: "Recent reports suggest that the recently passed health-care bill will be far more expensive than originally projected. As it becomes apparent that Obamacare is unsustainable, the calls for controlling its costs through rationing will grow louder. With Donald Berwick running the government's health-care efforts, those voices have a ready ear" (dailycaller.com, May 27).

By then, Berwick will be involved in the government-controlled health of more than 100 million Americans and - notes Michael Tanner - "Maybe those worries about death panels weren't so crazy after all."

Keep in mind that already, in May, "the Congressional Budget Office updated its cost projections (of Obamacare). It found that the new health legislation would cost $115 billion more than estimated when it was enacted ("ObamaCare's Ever-Rising Price Tag," Wall Street Journal, June 3).

How soon will the romantic rhythms of health rationing follow?

Wesley Smith, an invaluable investigative reporter on the dangers of government-controlled health care, describes the consequences if Obamacare is not repealed by the next Congress after the midterm elections:

"Once the centralized planning of medical delivery is complete - with cost-containment boards controlling the standards of care and the extent of coverage for both the private and public sectors - insurance companies, HMOs and the government will be able to legally discriminate against the sickest, most disabled and most elderly in our country. In other words, those whose care is most expensive."

For what to watch for during the reign of Berwick, whom Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius recently glorified as "absolutely the right leader for this time" (CNSNews.com, May 26), I bring back Michael Tanner:

In the British Health Service Berwick loves, "750,000 patients are awaiting admission to NHS hospitals. ...The latest estimates suggest that for most specialties, only 30 to 50 percent of patients are treated within 18 weeks. For trauma and orthopedic patients, the figure is only 20 percent. ... Every year. 50,000 surgeries are canceled because patients become too sick on the waiting list to proceed."

And, again unlike the president, Berwick tells it like it frighteningly is in a June 2009 interview for the magazine, Biotechnology Healthcare:

"It's not a question of whether we will ration health care. It is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

There are many reasons why it is vital for Americans to vote in the midterm elections - and, of course, in 2012, to prevent a second term for the most dangerous and incompetent president we have ever had - but for many Americans, it is particularly important this year to vote against supporters of Obamacare. The question for many voters should be whether, in the years ahead, they will be in condition to vote if they are on waiting lists for government-controlled health care.

More of us are learning that during the Obama administration, it is essential to continually keep our eyes open on all it does.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the libertarian Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/12/health_care_rationing_obama_believes_in_106268.htm l

[epicSocialism4tw]

These clowns are in for a political reckoning.

What they havent yet figured out is that the damage they are doing now will bear its ugly fruit for several years down the line. In their haste to rush through the ultimate far-left landscape-changing agenda, they are alienating their party from America. They were too stubborn to realize that people are set against nearly every policy that they have enacted is against public interest.

This will punish the dems for years to come. The center is turning to the right.

[barryr]

No question they didn't fully grasp the idea that not everyone who voted for Obama was a blind supporter and would go along with whatever he said and did and ask no questions. His staunch supporters will go along with anything he says and does, that is a given, but he and the other demos. have lost much support from the fence sitters and will lose them for a long time until they get new blood in there. Continue with the stale Pelosi, Boxer, Kerry, Gore, Reid, Frank types won't get them far.

[cutthemdown]

We need the Newt!!!!

[ghwk]

New server same Barryr.....

[TailgateNut]

New server same Barryr.....

Regardless of how much cologne you pour on a pile of dung, it still reeks!:wiggle:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Regardless of how much cologne you pour on a pile of dung, it still reeks!:wiggle:

Its a shame that you liberal whackos have long since abandoned attempting to fabricate any type of sentient argument to retort a post like barryr made.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Obama said he doesn't believe in rationing healthcare and his healthbill won't do that, yet bypasess hearings to appoint a man to run Medicare who has stated he supports rationing of healthcare and government control, not to mention redistriuting of wealth, which Obama has stated himself supporting. Obama is a liar! He has no need to lie if felt the majority of this country wanted this, but he is going to do his best to see it happens anyway.


July 12, 2010
Health Care Rationing Obama Believes In
By Nat Hentoff

As a reporter, I do not use euphemisms - such as calling murderous terrorists "militants" or "activists." And as an American, I can exercise my First Amendment right to say plainly that President Obama is a liar with regard to our new health-care law, often referred to as Obamacare.

When a number of critics of Obamacare, including myself, warned that it would bring the rationing of treatments, medications and research into new procedures, the president said to the American Medical Association (June 15, 2009) that this rationing charge was a "fear tactic."

The next month, he said flat out: "I don't believe that government can or should run health care" (firstthings.com, May 31, 2010).

But in May of this year, the president nominated Dr. Donald Berwick, a professor at Harvard Medical School, to head Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) - the most powerful health-care position. As Hal Scherz underlines (RealClearPolitics.com, May 26): "CMS covers over 100 million Americans, has an annual $800 billion budget that is larger than the Defense Department's and is the second-largest insurance company in the world."

Unlike Obama, Berwick is enthusiastically, openly candid in his support of Britain's socialistic National Health Service. In a 2008 speech to British physicians, our new health czar said: "I am romantic about National Health Service. I love it (because it is) 'generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just.'"

That "just" National Health Care Service decides which care can be too costly for the government to pay. Its real-time decider of life-or-death outcomes is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Here is how "nicely" it works, described by Michael Tanner, senior fellow and health-care expert at the Cato Institute (where I, too, am a senior fellow):

"It acts as a comparative-effectiveness tool for the National Health Care Service, comparing various treatments and determining whether the benefits the patients receives - SUCH AS PROLONGED LIFE - are cost-efficient for the government" (lifenews.com, May 27).

So listen to our very own decider of how the Obama administration will lower our national debt by cutting inefficient health-care costs. After declaring his ardent romantic attachment to the British system, Berwick said: "All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country." He will, of course, be too busy to attend the funerals of the sacrificial Americans whose lives - not only those of the elderly - may thereby be cut short.

Tanner makes a grim point as Berwick rediscovers the romance of government cost-effectiveness: "Recent reports suggest that the recently passed health-care bill will be far more expensive than originally projected. As it becomes apparent that Obamacare is unsustainable, the calls for controlling its costs through rationing will grow louder. With Donald Berwick running the government's health-care efforts, those voices have a ready ear" (dailycaller.com, May 27).

By then, Berwick will be involved in the government-controlled health of more than 100 million Americans and - notes Michael Tanner - "Maybe those worries about death panels weren't so crazy after all."

Keep in mind that already, in May, "the Congressional Budget Office updated its cost projections (of Obamacare). It found that the new health legislation would cost $115 billion more than estimated when it was enacted ("ObamaCare's Ever-Rising Price Tag," Wall Street Journal, June 3).

How soon will the romantic rhythms of health rationing follow?

Wesley Smith, an invaluable investigative reporter on the dangers of government-controlled health care, describes the consequences if Obamacare is not repealed by the next Congress after the midterm elections:

"Once the centralized planning of medical delivery is complete - with cost-containment boards controlling the standards of care and the extent of coverage for both the private and public sectors - insurance companies, HMOs and the government will be able to legally discriminate against the sickest, most disabled and most elderly in our country. In other words, those whose care is most expensive."

For what to watch for during the reign of Berwick, whom Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius recently glorified as "absolutely the right leader for this time" (CNSNews.com, May 26), I bring back Michael Tanner:

In the British Health Service Berwick loves, "750,000 patients are awaiting admission to NHS hospitals. ...The latest estimates suggest that for most specialties, only 30 to 50 percent of patients are treated within 18 weeks. For trauma and orthopedic patients, the figure is only 20 percent. ... Every year. 50,000 surgeries are canceled because patients become too sick on the waiting list to proceed."

And, again unlike the president, Berwick tells it like it frighteningly is in a June 2009 interview for the magazine, Biotechnology Healthcare:

"It's not a question of whether we will ration health care. It is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

There are many reasons why it is vital for Americans to vote in the midterm elections - and, of course, in 2012, to prevent a second term for the most dangerous and incompetent president we have ever had - but for many Americans, it is particularly important this year to vote against supporters of Obamacare. The question for many voters should be whether, in the years ahead, they will be in condition to vote if they are on waiting lists for government-controlled health care.

More of us are learning that during the Obama administration, it is essential to continually keep our eyes open on all it does.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the libertarian Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/12/health_care_rationing_obama_believes_in_106268.htm l

No question IMO, that the choice of Berwick goes against a lot of what Obama said when trying to convince the public Obamacare was a good idea.

Let's not kid ourselves though. Regardless of what you guys think, at some point, there is going to have to be cuts in Medicare. Whether it's rationing or straight up cuts. It's going to have to happen.

Paul Ryan's plan gets rid of Medicare as we know if for anybody 55 and under and replaces it with vouchers that will only cover a portion of a seniors medical care. Quite frankly, it's going to have to be something this drastic to get the books in order.

[epicSocialism4tw]

No question IMO, that the choice of Berwick goes against a lot of what Obama said when trying to convince the public Obamacare was a good idea.

Let's not kid ourselves though. Regardless of what you guys think, at some point, there is going to have to be cuts in Medicare. Whether it's rationing or straight up cuts. It's going to have to happen.

Paul Ryan's plan gets rid of Medicare as we know if for anybody 55 and under and replaces it with vouchers that will only cover a portion of a seniors medical care. Quite frankly, it's going to have to be something this drastic to get the books in order.

The Obama administration keeps telling us that it needs to regulate our health care...by forcing more people pay in...and then cutting services back.

It doesnt take a seasoned economist to see how bad of a plan that actually is. You are asking people to pay more for more poorly run, lesser quality, and fewer services.

We dont have to accept the Obama solution, because it is a poorly reasoned cop out of a solution. We have the political power to throw it out. We just need the political will.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You know...it would be funny if it wasnt so sad, but these guys are consistently proving "conspiracy theorists" like Glenn Beck right over and over again. Theyre making him look like fragglin' Nostradamus.

The strategy of "lie to them about it now, and slip it under the table later" is probably the worst policy strategy that they could come up with and they have hitched their entire legislative monstrosity to that wagon.

[Obushma]

We need the Newt!!!!

Yeah, another Neocon to **** things up like Bush did, sounds like a great idea.

[barryr]

No question IMO, that the choice of Berwick goes against a lot of what Obama said when trying to convince the public Obamacare was a good idea.

Let's not kid ourselves though. Regardless of what you guys think, at some point, there is going to have to be cuts in Medicare. Whether it's rationing or straight up cuts. It's going to have to happen.

Paul Ryan's plan gets rid of Medicare as we know if for anybody 55 and under and replaces it with vouchers that will only cover a portion of a seniors medical care. Quite frankly, it's going to have to be something this drastic to get the books in order.

Hmm, many of us believed rationing was going to happen months ago, yet Obama supporters just called it scare tactics. Interesting how it's just a ho- hum part of reality now.

[Drek]

Hmm, many of us believed rationing was going to happen months ago, yet Obama supporters just called it scare tactics. Interesting how it's just a ho- hum part of reality now.

You really are just a mindless sheep aren't you.

In the very article referenced in your OP where Berwick claims to have felt "romantic" about British healthcare he also described how upon further investigation he began to see what he called its "warts", first and foremost was the rationing of healthcare.

Finding a system to be superior to our own does not mean you think it is flawless, just superior.

The level of spurious logic thrown around in political discourse today would make the founding fathers weep.

[barryr]

You really are just a mindless sheep aren't you.

In the very article referenced in your OP where Berwick claims to have felt "romantic" about British healthcare he also described how upon further investigation he began to see what he called its "warts", first and foremost was the rationing of healthcare.

Finding a system to be superior to our own does not mean you think it is flawless, just superior.

The level of spurious logic thrown around in political discourse today would make the founding fathers weep.

What are you dumb? He is quoted saying:

"It's not a question of whether we will ration health care. It is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

You get from this he isn't for rationing? Buy a clue, thank you.

[Requiem]

Its a shame that you liberal whackos have long since abandoned attempting to fabricate any type of sentient argument to retort a post like barryr made.

He posts articles, never analyzes them for himself. I'm sure having others make points for him due to lack of ability and articulation has been a mainstay in his being since the day he platooned.

[barryr]

He posts articles, never analyzes them for himself. I'm sure having others make points for him due to lack of ability and articulation has been a mainstay in his being since the day he platooned.

LOL, this coming from you who claims he's objective? I analyze when I feel like and no I don't feel the need to respond to each and every name calling ad hominem BS post, that has nothing to do with the articles themselves, which is routinely done by liberals like yourself, which apparently is apart of your" analytical" abilities. You fool nobody NFL scout fake buddy. :clown:

[Requiem]

Barry, three or four of your last ten posts on this forum have talked about "liberal tactics" -- might want to gather some new material. "You aren't fooling anybody." Might be time to take your sub-100 I.Q. and find a new sandbox to play in; or better yet, join a militia in Arizona and help solve the immigration problem. Maybe solve your own problems first though. Just a thought.

[barryr]

Barry, three or four of your last ten posts on this forum have talked about "liberal tactics" -- might want to gather some new material. "You aren't fooling anybody." Might be time to take your sub-100 I.Q. and find a new sandbox to play in; or better yet, join a militia in Arizona and help solve the immigration problem. Maybe solve your own problems first though. Just a thought.

Why, I don't see you worrying about say LABF and others who in each and every post state something about conservatives. Come on history scholar wonder boy, show your objectivity as you claim LOL.

[Requiem]

I've critiqued a few lefties on the site regarding some of their blanket generalizations. You just happen to be one of the more annoying lemmings on the site who display a preponderance of such idiocy, and a penchant for using political terms as pejoratives. Kudos to you, Barry from Arizona.

[barryr]

I've critiqued a few lefties on the site regarding some of their blanket generalizations. You just happen to be one of the more annoying lemmings on the site who display a preponderance of such idiocy, and a penchant for using political terms as pejoratives. Kudos to you, Barry from Arizona.

Sure, you have. You are so full of ****. But don't worry, I plan to be an "annoyance" to remind you and others of your hypocrical BS. No thanks needed history scholar wonder boy Ha!

[Requiem]

I could care less what you do, Barry.

I'm actually glad you have the Orange Mane as your social outlet. I'm sure it gives you a reason to keep waking up.

[barryr]

I could care less what you do, Barry.

I'm actually glad you have the Orange Mane as your social outlet. I'm sure it gives you a reason to keep waking up.

But oh, you do care. You seem to follow me around in many threads with mainly just a chance to post your usual condescending, sniveling know it all(your case know very little) responses and ignoring the subject of the thread. So don't worry, since you care so much about me, I will care about you too :wave:

[Requiem]

Barry, when it comes to politics, religion and history -- I have no doubts that my knowledge of the aforementioned is superior to yours. Not a doubt in my mind. I'd bet my life on it, even my momma's, and I love my momma.

[barryr]

Barry, when it comes to politics, religion and history -- I have no doubts that my knowledge of the aforementioned is superior to yours. Not a doubt in my mind. I'd bet my life on it, even my momma's, and I love my momma.

Oh, yes wonder boy. Can I have your autograph? But please write it on toilet paper so I can wipe my ass with it LOL

[Requiem]

"The sting in any rebuke is the truth." -- Do you know who said it?

Wait, do you know this man?

http://jasonpostman.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/isp_benjamins.jpg

[gunns]

What are you dumb? He is quoted saying:

"It's not a question of whether we will ration health care. It is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

You get from this he isn't for rationing? Buy a clue, thank you.

This is his opinion....and yours. It's like saying Cincinnati will win the SB. Hasn't happened and no one knows if it will happen and until it does....or doesn't you can unwad your panties. I mean healthcare potential for everyone is a horrible, horrible thing. All having to pay for it....damn what a concept.

[ghwk]

But oh, you do care. You seem to follow me around in many threads :wave:

So this sort of supports the point I am about to make. You and McSkillet should be banned. On any given day if you hit the new posts button about 20 new brainless baiting threads have been started by the two of you.

I think your incredible amount of spew drivel added a good 10 extra hours to the server move. We all suffered for that.

[Drek]

What are you dumb? He is quoted saying:

"It's not a question of whether we will ration health care. It is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

You get from this he isn't for rationing? Buy a clue, thank you.

Thank you for once again proving my point.

In the article referenced he talked about how we already currently ration health care and that we need to start doing it with "our eyes open".

You really should stop taking every last bit of spin as absolute truth when it is so damn easy to fact check and see that people like the clown who wrote this is parsing phrases in order to corrupt the context and meaning towards his own ends.

[DenverBrit]

You really are just a mindless sheep aren't you.

In the very article referenced in your OP where Berwick claims to have felt "romantic" about British healthcare he also described how upon further investigation he began to see what he called its "warts", first and foremost was the rationing of healthcare.

Finding a system to be superior to our own does not mean you think it is flawless, just superior.

The level of spurious logic thrown around in political discourse today would make the founding fathers weep.

You are exactly right. No healthcare system in the world is flawless, and learning from others flaws is a great way to move forward in the US. With the incredible amounts of money being spent here, the system should be better. But the insurance companies....who really serve no purpose other than skimming about 30% of the gross.......keep the costs high and have been cherry picking their 'risk' by excluding or overcharging those who have a pre-existing condition. To be honest, I don't know what we ended up with, the bill was so ridiculously long winded, I'm not sure those voted have a clue either.

As for the British system, it is flawed, but the CATO claims seem in conflict with this:

UK comes top on end of life care - report

The UK has one of the best systems for end of life care, a global study says.

The analysis by the Economist Intelligence Unit looked at access to services, quality of care and public awareness in 40 countries.

It found the UK performed particularly well on issues such as obtaining pain killers and quality of support

Along with Australia, it received 7.9 out of 10, well ahead of nations such as Denmark, on 5.1 and Italy, on 4.4. India came bottom on 1.9.

TOP FIVE COUNTRIES

* UK - 7.9 out of 10
* Australia - 7.9
* New Zealand - 7.7
* Ireland - 6.8
* Belgium - 6.8

BOTTOM FIVE COUNTRIES

* India - 1.9 out of 10
* Uganda - 2.1
* Brazil - 2.2
* China - 2.3
* Mexico - 2.7

The researchers, part of the group which publishes the Economist magazine, talked to health professionals in 40 countries as well as looking through official data.

They concluded access to drugs and carers were the two most pressing issues for all involved.

They also said that most health systems, no matter how well funded, relied to some extent on charities and philanthropic bodies to offer support to patients, particularly through networks of hospices.

David Praill, chief executive of Help the Hospices in the UK and co-chairman of the Worldwide Palliative Care Alliance, said the result was "heartening" for the UK.

But he added: "The system is far from perfect and there remains huge disparity."

He also said urgent action was needed in those countries with the worst systems.

"Hospice and palliative care is still unavailable to many of those in need, especially in the developing world with millions of people dying in pain and distress every year."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10634371

Edit: The original Economist report.

http://www.eiuresources.com/mediadir/default.asp?PR=2010071401

[barryr]

This is his opinion....and yours. It's like saying Cincinnati will win the SB. Hasn't happened and no one knows if it will happen and until it does....or doesn't you can unwad your panties. I mean healthcare potential for everyone is a horrible, horrible thing. All having to pay for it....damn what a concept.

OMG, all having to pay for it? What concept is this and what the hell are you smoking to think that's going to happen? Geez, living in a fairy tale.

[barryr]

So this sort of supports the point I am about to make. You and McSkillet should be banned. On any given day if you hit the new posts button about 20 new brainless baiting threads have been started by the two of you.

I think your incredible amount of spew drivel added a good 10 extra hours to the server move. We all suffered for that.

No, idiots like you should be banned since you offer nothing but liberal talking points and since can't find anything to refute news you don't like, would rather it be silenced. Hey, a true liberal :wave:

[barryr]

You are exactly right. No healthcare system in the world is flawless, and learning from others flaws is a great way to move forward in the US. With the incredible amounts of money being spent here, the system should be better. But the insurance companies....who really serve no purpose other than skimming about 30% of the gross.......keep the costs high and have been cherry picking their 'risk' by excluding or overcharging those who have a pre-existing condition. To be honest, I don't know what we ended up with, the bill was so ridiculously long winded, I'm not sure those voted have a clue either.

As for the British system, it is flawed, but the CATO claims seem in conflict with this:

UK comes top on end of life care - report

The UK has one of the best systems for end of life care, a global study says.

The analysis by the Economist Intelligence Unit looked at access to services, quality of care and public awareness in 40 countries.

It found the UK performed particularly well on issues such as obtaining pain killers and quality of support

Along with Australia, it received 7.9 out of 10, well ahead of nations such as Denmark, on 5.1 and Italy, on 4.4. India came bottom on 1.9.

TOP FIVE COUNTRIES

* UK - 7.9 out of 10
* Australia - 7.9
* New Zealand - 7.7
* Ireland - 6.8
* Belgium - 6.8

BOTTOM FIVE COUNTRIES

* India - 1.9 out of 10
* Uganda - 2.1
* Brazil - 2.2
* China - 2.3
* Mexico - 2.7

The researchers, part of the group which publishes the Economist magazine, talked to health professionals in 40 countries as well as looking through official data.

They concluded access to drugs and carers were the two most pressing issues for all involved.

They also said that most health systems, no matter how well funded, relied to some extent on charities and philanthropic bodies to offer support to patients, particularly through networks of hospices.

David Praill, chief executive of Help the Hospices in the UK and co-chairman of the Worldwide Palliative Care Alliance, said the result was "heartening" for the UK.

But he added: "The system is far from perfect and there remains huge disparity."

He also said urgent action was needed in those countries with the worst systems.

"Hospice and palliative care is still unavailable to many of those in need, especially in the developing world with millions of people dying in pain and distress every year."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10634371

Edit: The original Economist report.

http://www.eiuresources.com/mediadir/default.asp?PR=2010071401

So if this is to be believed, there should be countless people from the U.S. flocking to England. Let's see those numbers.

[DenverBrit]

So if this is to be believed, there should be countless people from the U.S. flocking to England. Let's see those numbers.

Another stupid statement from the forum's dumbass.

Are you too lazy to click a link to the survey and it's criteria, or is only the 'party line' acceptable to you?

Educate yourself before making a total ass of yourself....which seems to be your forte here.

[JJJ]

Another stupid statement from the forum's dumbass.

Are you too lazy to click a link to the survey and it's criteria, or is only the 'party line' acceptable to you?

Educate yourself before making a total ass of yourself....which seems to be your forte here.

I can see how the UK could lead this category. I think they have a great tradition of treating their elderly with a great deal of respect and dignity and the British society seems to create great environments for social interaction amongst its senior citizens and this seems to carry over into how they treat the terminally ill.

You would agree though that end of life care is a pretty small part of the overall health care system that needs to be graded yes?

Serious question here. No BS. As you are someone who has lived in both what is your honest appraisal of what you like and dislike about both systems?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quotes

<big style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">"Republicans get elected by saying government
doesn't work and then they prove it.</big><big style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">"

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0711/kyl-you-offset-tax-cuts/

http://www.bartcop.com/newt-fatboyrun.jpg
</big>

[barryr]

Another stupid statement from the forum's dumbass.

Are you too lazy to click a link to the survey and it's criteria, or is only the 'party line' acceptable to you?

Educate yourself before making a total ass of yourself....which seems to be your forte here.

Sure stupid ****, again, if Britain's healthcare is so great(interesting liberals care about that since supposedly Obama isn't for socialized medicine, hmm) then should be plenty of americans going there. I know, makes too much sense for liberals with heads up Obama's asshole. :D

[Requiem]

Actually makes no sense at all. There you go trying to think again Barry. Better stop before your brain pops.

[barryr]

Oh, no slappy boy woke up from his nap. Milk and cookies time! LOL

[Requiem]

Actually, I'm just starting my day. About a half hour into it. I've already taken two monster dumps.

[barryr]

Actually, I'm just starting my day. About a half hour into it. I've already taken two monster dumps.

Oh, in that case, Obama or mommy, whoever is closest, his ass needs wiping! Make sure there is enough Huggies. :spit:

[DenverBrit]

I can see how the UK could lead this category. I think they have a great tradition of treating their elderly with a great deal of respect and dignity and the British society seems to create great environments for social interaction amongst its senior citizens and this seems to carry over into how they treat the terminally ill.

You would agree though that end of life care is a pretty small part of the overall health care system that needs to be graded yes?

Serious question here. No BS. As you are someone who has lived in both what is your honest appraisal of what you like and dislike about both systems?

Absolutely. My post was a response to Barryr's CATO article dealing with'rationing.' The UK system, (NHS) is transparently flawed, as is the French system, which is widely regarded as the best in the world. No health care system is perfect but the US has an opportunity to study a variety of 'universal' approaches and should be able to better all of them. The facilities are here, much of it up to date and a more modern infrastructure than any other country.

You ask what I like and dislike about each system. I haven't used the NHS in decades, so I'm not sure if standards are better or worse than when I left.

The US system is great.....if you have good insurance. It's expensive, and millions can't get insurance, so it has huge gaps. I've generally had good treatment when I've needed it.

The UK, is much less expensive...as is the rest of the world. But the infrastructure is much older but the quality of care is also excellent. And everyone is covered. Many choose to add private supplement insurance with companies like BUPA. You can go ala carte and select different coverages. For instance. If you want to cover only cancer and heart....you can. Added together, the cost for individuals is similar to the US. One major difference is that when you lose your job, you do not lose health coverage. Many here are losing both......a lot can't afford the COBRA payments.

Both systems have pros and cons. Unfortunately, I have yet to fully understand the Obama bill. But so far, it seems like a cluster **** and hasn't 'reformed' much. Preventing the insurance companies from excluding those with a pre-existing condition is a biggie. But I have a feeling the lobbyists have made sure that the cost will be prohibitive.

Here is a pretty good article comparing the US and UK health systems written by Time when Obama was proposing universal care.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916570,00.html?loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.1 29293:b27600216&xid=Loomia

[DenverBrit]

Sure stupid ****, again, if Britain's healthcare is so great(interesting liberals care about that since supposedly Obama isn't for socialized medicine, hmm) then should be plenty of americans going there. I know, makes too much sense for liberals with heads up Obama's a-hole. :D

Do you wake up drunk or is stupid your natural state?

Everything is going way over your head and it's your thread. Remarkable!

[Requiem]

He's just not a very smart guy. It is that simple.

[barryr]

Do you wake up drunk or is stupid your natural state?

Everything is going way over your head and it's your thread. Remarkable!

This coming from a :clown: How about getting your head out of your ass and smell fresh air, not to mention reality. My guess you belong to NAMBLA.

[barryr]

He's just not a very smart guy. It is that simple.

Oh, lookie, History for Dummies history scholar has a friend. Isn't that special.:wiggle:

[DenverBrit]

This coming from a :clown: How about getting your head out of your ass and smell fresh air, not to mention reality. My guess you belong to NAMBLA.

I had to google that one.

Why would I be a member of a Republican organization like NAMBA? Dingbat!

[barryr]

I had to google that one.

Why would I be a member of a Republican organization like NAMBA? Dingbat!

Because you are used to having your head up your ass, so why not someone elses? Oh, and I bet you had to google that one. Probably at the top of your favorites LOL

[JJJ]

Absolutely. My post was a response to Barryr's CATO article dealing with'rationing.' The UK system, (NHS) is transparently flawed, as is the French system, which is widely regarded as the best in the world. No health care system is perfect but the US has an opportunity to study a variety of 'universal' approaches and should be able to better all of them. The facilities are here, much of it up to date and a more modern infrastructure than any other country.

You ask what I like and dislike about each system. I haven't used the NHS in decades, so I'm not sure if standards are better or worse than when I left.

The US system is great.....if you have good insurance. It's expensive, and millions can't get insurance, so it has huge gaps. I've generally had good treatment when I've needed it.

The UK, is much less expensive...as is the rest of the world. But the infrastructure is much older but the quality of care is also excellent. And everyone is covered. Many choose to add private supplement insurance with companies like BUPA. You can go ala carte and select different coverages. For instance. If you want to cover only cancer and heart....you can. Added together, the cost for individuals is similar to the US. One major difference is that when you lose your job, you do not lose health coverage. Many here are losing both......a lot can't afford the COBRA payments.

Both systems have pros and cons. Unfortunately, I have yet to fully understand the Obama bill. But so far, it seems like a cluster **** and hasn't 'reformed' much. Preventing the insurance companies from excluding those with a pre-existing condition is a biggie. But I have a feeling the lobbyists have made sure that the cost will be prohibitive.

Here is a pretty good article comparing the US and UK health systems written by Time when Obama was proposing universal care.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916570,00.html?loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.1 29293:b27600216&xid=Loomia

I really have to question the cost thing. I live in Switzerland and for me personally it is 4 times as expensive as in the US. Here the employer pays nothing and the government pays nothing unless you are low income. Since in the US the employer pays usually around 75% the overall costs seems the same.

In those systems where the goverment is paying I think it is very hard to determine the actual costs. I am a little dubious of these claims that those systems are really cheaper. I really can't see any reason why the systems in France or the UK are any cheaper than in Switzerland. I do know the social costs paid by the company for our French employees are much, much higher than elsewhere on the continent, around 55% of salary, and a good chunk of that is certainly going to health benefits.

[Mr.Meanie]

I really have to question the cost thing. I live in Switzerland and for me personally it is 4 times as expensive as in the US. Here the employer pays nothing and the government pays nothing unless you are low income. Since in the US the employer pays usually around 75% the overall costs seems the same.

In those systems where the goverment is paying I think it is very hard to determine the actual costs. I am a little dubious of these claims that those systems are really cheaper. I really can't see any reason why the systems in France or the UK are any cheaper than in Switzerland. I do know the social costs paid by the company for our French employees are much, much higher than elsewhere on the continent, around 55% of salary, and a good chunk of that is certainly going to health benefits.

I'm curious about your experience with the health care in Switzerland. What are the positives and negatives you see there?

[DenverBrit]

I really have to question the cost thing. I live in Switzerland and for me personally it is 4 times as expensive as in the US. Here the employer pays nothing and the government pays nothing unless you are low income. Since in the US the employer pays usually around 75% the overall costs seems the same.

In those systems where the goverment is paying I think it is very hard to determine the actual costs. I am a little dubious of these claims that those systems are really cheaper. I really can't see any reason why the systems in France or the UK are any cheaper than in Switzerland. I do know the social costs paid by the company for our French employees are much, much higher than elsewhere on the continent, around 55% of salary, and a good chunk of that is certainly going to health benefits.

All I have to go on are the costs that are made public.
This is a typical cost estimate that I have seen often before. Note that the cost is per person covered, in the case of the UK, that means everyone.

From the Time article:

Britain achieves these results while spending proportionally less on health care than the U.S. — about $2,500 per person in Britain, compared with $6,000 in the U.S.

[DenverBrit]

I'm curious about your experience with the health care in Switzerland. What are the positives and negatives you see there?

ditto.

[JJJ]

I'm curious about your experience with the health care in Switzerland. What are the positives and negatives you see there?

Private companies provide the insurance to all people in Switzerland. Pretty much an all private system though most of the hospitals are run by the cantons (states) and many of the doctors work for those hospitals. But there are lots of private practices also.

Having health care is compulsary with a basic plan defined by the government to the insurers. If you have to pay more than 8% of your salary for the basic plan the government will subsidize the difference.

Even with the insurance there is a deductible amount (250-2500 dollars, with higher deductible having lower monthly payments) and in addition a 10% co-pay, that is capped at around 700 dollars or so.

The providers cannot charge based on age, sex, or state of health, at least for the minimum level of coverage. But they definitely seem to discriminate for pre-existing conditions if you want more than the basic coverage. My wife had some pre-existing conditions and they wouldn't let her buy any of the more expensive upgrades, like private hospital room packages.

Reasonable choices in terms of insurers though the companies seem to collude a bit on pricing. With only 7 million people not enough of a market to generate real competition.

Many people have said it the model the US should look to. For me this is absolutely the system the US should have moved to. Why?

1. In the US we already have most people on private insurance and it would have been fairly straightforward to implement the additional coverage and the subsidy features while keep the existing infrastructure in place, including the employer-based system.

2. There is competition amongst the providers, always a good thing. You choose the provider yourself and can switch if you are not happy.

3. It covers everyone.

4. It limits the government involvement to writing checks, the only thing they are competent to do.

5. It is mobile and you keep it when change jobs.

6. The means testing is reasonable but still makes people pay for a portion of their healthcare. Things that are free are not valued. Same goes for the 10% co-pay, it makes people think about the cost of what they are receiving.

With Obamacare in the US cover we didn't cover everyone, one of the primary goals and also really puts the government run programs in competition with the private ones. I think that leads to real problems.

Many employers will now shfit the responsibility of health care to the governement in a slow, clumsy, painful process. Many, many people are going to be caught in the middle as this thing plays out and it becomes uncertain whether it is the role of employers or the government to provide health care insurance.

[Mr.Meanie]

Private companies provide the insurance to all people in Switzerland. Pretty much an all private system though most of the hospitals are run by the cantons (states) and many of the doctors work for those hospitals. But there are lots of private practices also.

Having health care is compulsary with a basic plan defined by the government to the insurers. If you have to pay more than 8% of your salary for the basic plan the government will subsidize the difference.

Even with the insurance there is a deductible amount (250-2500 dollars, with higher deductible having lower monthly payments) and in addition a 10% co-pay, that is capped at around 700 dollars or so.

The providers cannot charge based on age, sex, or state of health, at least for the minimum level of coverage. But they definitely seem to discriminate for pre-existing conditions if you want more than the basic coverage. My wife had some pre-existing conditions and they wouldn't let her buy any of the more expensive upgrades, like private hospital room packages.

Reasonable choices in terms of insurers though the companies seem to collude a bit on pricing. With only 7 million people not enough of a market to generate real competition.

Many people have said it the model the US should look to. For me this is absolutely the system the US should have moved to. Why?

1. In the US we already have most people on private insurance and it would have been fairly straightforward to implement the additional coverage and the subsidy features while keep the existing infrastructure in place, including the employer-based system.

2. There is competition amongst the providers, always a good thing. You choose the provider yourself and can switch if you are not happy.

3. It covers everyone.

4. It limits the government involvement to writing checks, the only thing they are competent to do.

5. It is mobile and you keep it when change jobs.

6. The means testing is reasonable but still makes people pay for a portion of their healthcare. Things that are free are not valued. Same goes for the 10% co-pay, it makes people think about the cost of what they are receiving.

With Obamacare in the US cover we didn't cover everyone, one of the primary goals and also really puts the government run programs in competition with the private ones. I think that leads to real problems.

Many employers will now shfit the responsibility of health care to the governement in a slow, clumsy, painful process. Many, many people are going to be caught in the middle as this thing plays out and it becomes uncertain whether it is the role of employers or the government to provide health care insurance.

That sounds like a great system, honestly. How does the system handle people who are at or below the poverty line and cant' afford the insurance? Or people who are unemployed with zero income?

[JJJ]

That sounds like a great system, honestly. How does the system handle people who are at or below the poverty line and cant' afford the insurance? Or people who are unemployed with zero income?

The 8% rule mentioned. If the basic coverage costs more than 8% of your income, the governement will cover the difference. So everyone is paying at least 8% of their salary for health care.

I have to check but I am pretty sure they treat unemployment payments just like your income so you have to continue to pay at least 8% of what you get from the government to the insurer.

For me it is American in its nature but has the cover-everyone and pre-existing condition features as well as mobility that I think we all can agree upon are good goals.

Though I don't agree with it I can understand how people think the single payer system is the way to go but I don't see how you can make the transition from where we are now to that without a lot of pain. And I think this system is actually much better and is simply an extension of what is already in place in the US.

The Swiss also have something called short work, which in times of financial trouble like now, the government will pay the employer to keep the employees on the payroll and working part-time. So you can take your employees down to 2 days of work per week and the government pays the rest. The employees gets 4% less pay per day dropped. A pretty good way to keep skilled workers in the company during a recession. It gets pretty expensive for the government of course but in many cases they don't have to pay full unemployment and the companies can retain their talent.

[barryr]

Private companies provide the insurance to all people in Switzerland. Pretty much an all private system though most of the hospitals are run by the cantons (states) and many of the doctors work for those hospitals. But there are lots of private practices also.

Having health care is compulsary with a basic plan defined by the government to the insurers. If you have to pay more than 8% of your salary for the basic plan the government will subsidize the difference.

Even with the insurance there is a deductible amount (250-2500 dollars, with higher deductible having lower monthly payments) and in addition a 10% co-pay, that is capped at around 700 dollars or so.

The providers cannot charge based on age, sex, or state of health, at least for the minimum level of coverage. But they definitely seem to discriminate for pre-existing conditions if you want more than the basic coverage. My wife had some pre-existing conditions and they wouldn't let her buy any of the more expensive upgrades, like private hospital room packages.

Reasonable choices in terms of insurers though the companies seem to collude a bit on pricing. With only 7 million people not enough of a market to generate real competition.

Many people have said it the model the US should look to. For me this is absolutely the system the US should have moved to. Why?

1. In the US we already have most people on private insurance and it would have been fairly straightforward to implement the additional coverage and the subsidy features while keep the existing infrastructure in place, including the employer-based system.

2. There is competition amongst the providers, always a good thing. You choose the provider yourself and can switch if you are not happy.

3. It covers everyone.

4. It limits the government involvement to writing checks, the only thing they are competent to do.

5. It is mobile and you keep it when change jobs.

6. The means testing is reasonable but still makes people pay for a portion of their healthcare. Things that are free are not valued. Same goes for the 10% co-pay, it makes people think about the cost of what they are receiving.

With Obamacare in the US cover we didn't cover everyone, one of the primary goals and also really puts the government run programs in competition with the private ones. I think that leads to real problems.

Many employers will now shfit the responsibility of health care to the governement in a slow, clumsy, painful process. Many, many people are going to be caught in the middle as this thing plays out and it becomes uncertain whether it is the role of employers or the government to provide health care insurance.

Looks great to me and makes sense, but makes too much sense for the U.S. to use, plus eliminates lobbyists and sweetheart deals for politicians costing them personal wealth, so the career politicians would never go for this. Why we need them gone.

[cutthemdown]

Man that swiss system seems really smart. What are we missing here? or why are we so dumb? In the Swiss system who wouldn't be getting rich here in America? As in if we did it that way, with the 8% rule thing, who would be poorer? As in doctors, insurance? hospitals? what?

[Spider]

The 8% rule mentioned. If the basic coverage costs more than 8% of your income, the governement will cover the difference. So everyone is paying at least 8% of their salary for health care.

I have to check but I am pretty sure they treat unemployment payments just like your income so you have to continue to pay at least 8% of what you get from the government to the insurer.

For me it is American in its nature but has the cover-everyone and pre-existing condition features as well as mobility that I think we all can agree upon are good goals.

Though I don't agree with it I can understand how people think the single payer system is the way to go but I don't see how you can make the transition from where we are now to that without a lot of pain. And I think this system is actually much better and is simply an extension of what is already in place in the US.

The Swiss also have something called short work, which in times of financial trouble like now, the government will pay the employer to keep the employees on the payroll and working part-time. So you can take your employees down to 2 days of work per week and the government pays the rest. The employees gets 4% less pay per day dropped. A pretty good way to keep skilled workers in the company during a recession. It gets pretty expensive for the government of course but in many cases they don't have to pay full unemployment and the companies can retain their talent.

not bad at all

[Spider]

OMG, all having to pay for it? What concept is this and what the hell are you smoking to think that's going to happen? Geez, living in a fairy tale.

LOL you are perfect example of a retard participating in a topic he has no clue about .... ...it is obvious your god ruined a perfect prick when he put ears on your head

[barryr]

LOL you are perfect example of a retard participating in a topic he has no clue about .... ...it is obvious your god ruined a perfect prick when he put ears on your head

Speaking from the toothless drunk truck driver who knows very little in life. Go back to picking up your prostitutes, that's about all you understand in life LOL

[Requiem]

I'm sure your occupation is much better than truck driver, Barry.

[barryr]

I'm sure your occupation is much better than truck driver, Barry.

Of course, but what do you know? You are still unemployed waiting for that magical college to offer you a scholarship and wow them with your intellect LOL

[Rohirrim]

I'm sure your occupation is much better than truck driver, Barry.

I'm guessing security of some kind or other.

[barryr]

I'm guessing security of some kind or other.

Um yeah, though I know nothing beats that gig washing dishes you have LOL

[Requiem]

I'm guessing security of some kind or other.

Makes sense. Security would be an apt arena for a guy like him. A way he could continue on his high school bully-like persona and make up for his social inadequacies by having some tool of authority over others.

[Rohirrim]

Makes sense. Security would be an apt arena for a guy like him. A way he could continue on his high school bully-like persona and make up for his social inadequacies by having some tool of authority over others.

I doubt anybody would let him carry a weapon. Maybe a nerf billy club or one of those plastic light sabers like that Jedi on Youtube.