Michaelmike5556

i am also sick of the bullshit the gov is dishing out . which is why i don't trust a bunch of bureaucrats with my health . i am also American . also why my fav TV show is Bullshit

A the Post Office should be done alway with it was almost put out of business in the 1800s by the American letter company all the big shipping company's like FedEx and UPS would be able to do the post offices job but they cant cause the Government has a law that forbids those company's from offering a service at the same of near price of the Feds . if that not corrupt what is we could saved a lot of money and plus we would get money from the taxes on the companys that provide the service . also it is smart to notice that the post office is an out of date service with email taking all the personal messages and with large packages being done by the private company's all the post office does is provide junk mailers with a cheap service . think of that next time your box is crammed full of that shit your paying for it .


well the point your trying to make doest make sense your trying to put words in my mouth . I could turn it around and claim you want to take Socializing to an extreme . Government Hot dog stand government strip clubs government gas station government malls etc etc etc

ugacrew

Dude! He's being facetious.

Elvira

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/galle...ture=330307690

.

Steerpike

I'm not a big fan of the Post Office (though it's never let me down, personally), but - would Fed Ex commit to delivering all mail (perhaps excluding junk/bulk mail which is a sin) to every household, ever day? They do great with the high-profit, business-oriented stuff, but I'm not sure they would want to handle letter mail at a price of ~40 cents per envelope, at the current guaranteed delivery levels. The post office is not just a business, it's a service that may not be able to make a profit. If FedEx have already presented a business case that they can do, and want to do this, then I'll accept that but it's worth keeping in mind.

The same goes for the medical world. Profit, financial responsibility and accountability are wonderful things, but how do you encourage preventative healthcare in a system where profit is a motive? How do you justify providing care to an 80 year old who has no money in such a system? I don't have the answer to these questions, but my vote goes to anyone who will offer me affordable healthcare from 50 to 65, and provide healthcare to children of poor families.

I've just started working in the healthcare field myself (IT side) after 25 years in the more 'commercial' IT world, and ... oh my, how messed up it seems to be ... hundreds of incompatible systems struggling to talk to each other. It is shockingly inefficient. Tremendous scope for improvement, that's for sure!

Regarding the comment on Bush, and the 'snafu in Iraq' (!!!), am I the only one to see the irony of the Republicans? They resent giving a cent of foreign aid to countries, yet will happily spend BILLIONS on a war against them. Imagine if they'd given aid to Iraq, Palestine, etc in a truly meaningful way, so they wouldn't be hating us now. But wait ... that would piss off ... that country in the middle east that has an incredible influence on the US ... never mind ...

ugacrew

Does your hospital use Cerner Solutions? Just wondering.

snowbunny

Yeah, but it doesn't matter cos all the people without health insurance are not white except for the rednecks in Texas and Appalachia.

fatbrit

This sort of socializing? That's not extreme, just sad IMO.

snowbunny

Well -- at least he wants to do it legally. That's gotta count for something.

Xebedee

Hey-hey, I was having a crack. Not that the state of social services in the US is really anything to laugh at.
(Not sure if I have you sussed...) but lets try this general idea:

-As an American, do you really trust the free market enough to provide you with healthcare in any event and under any conditions? After all, we are talking insurance, right? What if you are out of work for 6mo's?
-Why not put it in the hands of Govt? Because you are told as an American that it defines you (as an American) that there should be no Govt. involvement in your life? Come on - you lot are better thinkers than that!
- Simply put, we have the power to vote and that is the controlling factor. We have no vote over XYZ Corp. nor do they care in the slightest wether you live or die. They just want your money.
- As for the USPS, I have no problem with it at all. I've always found it convenient and efficient. The ubiquitous white vans are a part of the scenery of modern Americana. Like the Police car with enough lights on it to bring down a small aircraft. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the logic that everything must be market driven. I'd rather take the basic and ordinary things for granted and just get on with my life - like complaining about the ineptitude of Govt. programs.

Tracym

I shiver to go near the healthcare thing again... but...

You mention the ineptitude of Govt. programs.

The Brits commenting here (in general) seem to basically trust the government and have a basic distrust of corporations.

The Yanks (many) deeply distrust the government to be competant at managing anything. They trust the market method more - not that they trust the corporations themselves, they trust that competition and the desire for their $$ will make the corporation work for them.

So keeping it out of the hands of the government, in many cases, gives them some amount of control.

Xebedee

I don't think anyone really trusts the Govt. I certainly don't. Its just that I do trust the power of the vote as leverage. I mean, what else is there? Sure, the US Govt. will prob do everything in their power to majorly balls up any Health care system, but the focal points in my addled mind are that they would be answerable and people would (in theory at least) have a right to treatment. Its also a question of fairness. Like someone else said here, I don't have an issue paying taxes to ensure that someone else has coverage because everyone would be in the same boat.

Perhaps that notion is a major philosophical split between Brits and Yanks.

Tracym

I have no problem paying more taxes either.

What I would be most afraid of is rationing. I think that is the major fear.

I don't think (hope!) most Americans are so uncaring they want people to go without health care. They're just not willing to "put their necks on the line" to ensure that for others.

Sure, many people are uninsured. Or underinsured. But not all - probably not even the majority.

So the majority (albeit shrinking perhaps) feels safe. Whether or not they should is a different debate. But if they currently feel safe - and have a choice of doctors, in-network or out, etc..... maybe if an insurance company is bad, their companies will switch to a different one... they system seems relatively ok and safe to them.

To switch to an NHS style system asks them to give that up - to have (basically) only once choice - the government system. To many.... that is terrifying. Giving up what they are familiar with, and feel fairly safe with - and put their trust into the government.

Everyone being in the same boat - well that's not really a yank-style goal. The philosophy here is more - work hard, earn your way - the american dream etc..... and provides for some being better off than others. Right or wrong, I don't think the argument of - well some might be worse off, some better, but we'd all be in the same boat will sit well necessarily (especially with those who have a good deal now).

Everyone having a right to treatment - that's great. But... with the fear of rationing.... the right to treatment doesn't do you any good, if the wait is too long, and the treatment is no longer successful. And that problem DOES occur with govt. systems. How often - one can argue. But not never.

The power of the vote as leverage - sure. Eventually. But if you're sick now, you'll be dead before you get a chance to vote the current administration out.

I will be amazed if the yanks vote to have the entire health care industry taken over by the govt. I personally would also be horrified. Here - not talking about every other govt.

Government run insurance - imo that might work. If I were hoping for something, that'd be it.

elfman

What most people who advocate the small government approach fail to grasp is that the reason so many roles are filled by government is that in the past it was found that the market on its own was unable or unwilling to provide those roles and services without compromising the public interest, or even directly harming public health and saftey. And that overall is what is currently happening with healthcare in this country.

Elvira

So it's okay for some people to go uninsured..........as long as it's not a majority.......... or even a tiny wincy minority...... say 16% or so?

This is the reality of healthcare without insurance:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/galle...ture=330307690

Makes me sick...

.

fatbrit

I think the difference is that the Brits commenting here have wide experience of different health systems whereas the Yanks commenting here generally do not. Most of the vocal critics on this board have never known anything but the American system -- Rete, Tracy et al.

The staunch rejection of universal health care system is not to be found among Yanks who have more experience of other ways of doing things. As evidence, have a gander at the comments about the NHS on uk-yankee -- mixed but overall favourable would be my summing up.