who is this Daniel Hannan guy

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

Mancie's right.

At least on the surface the Conservatives aren't portraying themselves as being on the politically far right.

Just as New Labour dropped every policy that could be seen as 'socialist' in 1997, in order to appeal to middle England, and thus ensure a victory, the Tories have done the same thing, but towards the centre left.

In theory they are supposed to be caring and sharing, and embracing of all.

Buy scratch beneath the surface a little....

and you find the majority of their MPs don't think the same was as their liberally promoted leader.

yer last sentence is the real key to this, Cameron will change his liberal views once elected, n his followers are too stupid to see this.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

'Two-thirds of Tory backbenchers oppose his (Cameron's) plan to exempt healthcare from any spending cuts that an incoming Conservative Government would make.'

Tory MPs revolt over Cameron's NHS plans - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

....scratch beneath the surface and reality rears it's ugly head, despite what Cameron says.

I see you ignore that Labour party policy does not commit to excepting healthcare from spending cuts.

Did you read in to why the candidate in 2007 differed? He agreed with Enoch on immigration. He was forced to resign. Hannan agreed with him on other issues. Hannan is more liberal on immigration than any of the main parties and he is down on record as so. It's apart of his ideology. It really is the silly season.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

He agreed with Enoch on immigration. He was forced to resign. Hannan agreed with him on other issues. Hannan is more liberal on immigration than any of the main parties and he is down on record as so. It's apart of his ideology.

Labelling the National Health Service as a 'sixty year old mistake', and then heaping praise on the most controversial British politcan since Oswald Mosley, may win him friends in America amongst right-wing extremists, but I can't imagine the vast majority of the electorate in this country will be too impressed with this Consevative MEP.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I see you ignore that Labour party policy does not commit to excepting healthcare from spending cuts.

Did you read in to why the candidate in 2007 differed? He agreed with Enoch on immigration. He was forced to resign. Hannan agreed with him on other issues. Hannan is more liberal on immigration than any of the main parties and he is down on record as so. It's apart of his ideology. It really is the silly season.

Well good of you to admit you are on first name terms with the dear departed "Enoch"... but you still defend the members of your party that are so far right wing they could leave the atmosphere...you can't do anything about it yet will carry on...you really are desperate for power.

[bullseyebarb]

Back in the 90's, my parents' Labor MP told me that it did not matter which party was elected to office, there would never be enough money for the NHS. This is the reality you must face. Once the consumer of medical services is replaced by a sclerotic government bureaucracy, it doesn't take too long for things to become skewed. My parents were supporters of the NHS.....just wanted it to be "fixed." They were doomed to disappointment.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by steeljack

Sorry Barb, think most working Californians would disagree with you , would be happy if you could let me know where a 61 year old Californian male can purchase Health insurance for less than $750 per month , something that does not EXCLUDE pre-existing conditions .
Since this and previous US Govts. have destroyed the manufacturing base of the country the only folks now who are guaranteed decent health care are Govt./state/County employees ....something the President wants to extend to the folks who actually pay the bills .
Don't agree with the guy on a few things , but on this one I do.

If the feds had not mandated that insurance companies cover every jot and tittle, insurance costs would be affordable. Likewise, you should be allowed to deduct premiums from your income taxes, just as employers do when purchasing group insurance. Medical insurance was never intended to be what it has become. Don't delude yourself into thinking Obama cares about the state of your healthcare. This is all about power and control. There are many things our government could do to make things better.....but those things would empower individuals....and we can't have that, can we? I believe the Swiss have a universal system which is not run by government - but they did come to an agreement with private insurance companies that each would absorb an equal number of people with pre-existing conditions.

Before we embark down the road to socialized medicine here, don't you think it would be a good idea for the government to fix what it has already broken? Medicare and Medicaid are already insolvent. And look at the VA and Indian Health Services. None are good recommendations for more government intervention.

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

Back in the 90's, my parents' Labor MP told me that it did not matter which party was elected to office, there would never be enough money for the NHS. This is the reality you must face. Once the consumer of medical services is replaced by a sclerotic government bureaucracy, it doesn't take too long for things to become skewed. My parents were supporters of the NHS.....just wanted it to be "fixed." They were doomed to disappointment.

Can you explain why there are so many citizens of the US that have difficulty accessing the health service in the US because they can not afford to pay for medical insurance. It has been mentioned earlier in this thread that the NHS (despite it not being perfect) is accessible to all the UK citizens irrespective of their ability to pay for the service. My husband has a medical condition for which their is no cure -if it was untreated it would be life threatening, but he receives an excellent service from the NHS. I am certain if he had to purchase medical insurance the costs would be prohibitive and he would likely not be able to receive the medical treatment and prescription drugs he needs to take every day to control the condition, because we could not afford the fees. He has been working (and paying tax) since he was 15 so he is helping to pay for his treatment.

I am very happy that the NHS is free at the point of delivery and paid for by our taxes.

Maybe you are forgetting the all basis of our Welfare State is - from each according to his means to each according to his needs.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by claytonender

Can you explain why there are so many citizens of the US that have difficulty accessing the health service in the US because they can not afford to pay for medical insurance. It has been mentioned earlier in this thread that the NHS (despite it not being perfect) is accessible to all the UK citizens irrespective of their ability to pay for the service. My husband has a medical condition for which their is no cure -if it was untreated it would be life threatening, but he receives an excellent service from the NHS. I am certain if he had to purchase medical insurance the costs would be prohibitive and he would likely not be able to receive the medical treatment and prescription drugs he needs to take every day to control the condition, because we could not afford the fees. He has been working (and paying tax) since he was 15 so he is helping to pay for his treatment.

I am very happy that the NHS is free at the point of delivery and paid for by our taxes.

Maybe you are forgetting the all basis of our Welfare State is - from each according to his means to each according to his needs.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Karl Marx 1875.

Just because one does not have medical insurance does not mean lack of access to health services in the U.S. There are many options. No hospital refuses care simply because a person lacks means. There are also low cost and free clinics all over the place, (unless you happen to live out in the middle of nowhere, of course.) The largest free clinic in the U.S. is in my own community and is supported by private donations....and to some tune, I might add. Beautiful facility. Doctors and dentists volunteer time each month and we have a great many of them so there are always medical professionals on hand each day. Equipment and drugs are likewise donated.

If you are happy with the care that your husband is receiving under the NHS then that is all that matters. My own family was not so fortunate. I don't believe it is a good idea to rely on the state for something as important as this.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by garinda

So as well as having a purely private health care system, for those who can presumably afford it, I assume you also don't believe there should be any state run education, and that all children's education should all be provided by private comanies, in the commercial free market place, again for those lucky enough to be able to afford it?

Bullseyebarb, I notice you haven't commented about state run education.

Shall we assume you also disapprove of it, for the same reasons you don't support a state run nationalised health service?

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Bullseyebarb, I notice you haven't commented about state run education.

Shall we assume you also disapprove of it, for the same reasons you don't support a state run nationalised health service?

Sorry about that, dear. Didn't mean to ignore your earlier comment. Yes, you would be correct in that assumption. I have no objection to schools being funded and operated by local communities using taxpayer dollars.....which is the way it used to be. In this way, parents have a great deal of control over the education of their children. It is the federal government and their meddling that I have a problem with. Hence the rise of home schooling and private school enrollments. Public school teachers are the most likely to send their own children to private school. Speaks volumes.

[steeljack]

just a note of explanation for folks who may be confused , the term "Public School" when used by an American means a State school open to everyone , and private schools are what the British call Public schools ( the exclusive ones where you have to pay) .

think the Americans have English usage right in this case .

[claytonender]

[QUOTE=bullseyebarb;739853]
If you are happy with the care that your husband is receiving under the NHS then that is all that matters. My own family was not so fortunate. I don't believe it is a good idea to rely on the state for something as important as this.]

The point about the treatment that my husband gets under the NHS is that no private medical insurer would take him on (this would probably also apply to my children and grandchildren - in case they had inherited the condition). He has not option (and neither do the majority of people in the UK) but to rely on the NHS. You don't say what happens to people in the US who have chronic medical problems that can only be treated but not cured, if they have no medical insurance. Even in the US and no matter how sophisticated your treatments are, it could not be cured and it is only by taking medication every day can it be kept under control.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

Sorry about that, dear. Didn't mean to ignore your earlier comment. Yes, you would be correct in that assumption. I have no objection to schools being funded and operated by local communities using taxpayer dollars.....which is the way it used to be. In this way, parents have a great deal of control over the education of their children. It is the federal government and their meddling that I have a problem with. Hence the rise of home schooling and private school enrollments. Public school teachers are the most likely to send their own children to private school. Speaks volumes.

Whilst growing up in the U.K. did you receive any education supplied by the state, or were your parents in the fortunate position to be able chose to send you to private schools, or even more fortunately, had the time to home school you?

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Karl Marx 1875.

Just because one does not have medical insurance does not mean lack of access to health services in the U.S. There are many options. No hospital refuses care simply because a person lacks means. There are also low cost and free clinics all over the place, (unless you happen to live out in the middle of nowhere, of course.) The largest free clinic in the U.S. is in my own community and is supported by private donations....and to some tune, I might add. Beautiful facility. Doctors and dentists volunteer time each month and we have a great many of them so there are always medical professionals on hand each day. Equipment and drugs are likewise donated.

If you are happy with the care that your husband is receiving under the NHS then that is all that matters. My own family was not so fortunate. I don't believe it is a good idea to rely on the state for something as important as this.

I don't like the look of that.. no one may be refused health care in the USA system but those who cannot afford insurance are given a down graded service... you say there are "low cost" free clinics relying on volunteer doctors...that is not a health care "system" we had that so called "system" here 70yrs ago.. we chose to put in place a real system were no matter rich or poor everyone received the best treatment possible.
You don't think people should rely on the state to provide decent heallh for it's citizens?...that sums up what the rest of the world already know about the American bill of rights..Bull kak of rights.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Mancie

I don't like the look of that.. no one may be refused health care in the USA system but those who cannot afford insurance are given a down graded service... you say there are "low cost" free clinics relying on volunteer doctors...that is not a health care "system" we had that so called "system" here 70yrs ago.. we chose to put in place a real system were no matter rich or poor everyone received the best treatment possible.
You don't think people should rely on the state to provide decent heallh for it's citizens?...that sums up what the rest of the world already know about the American bill of rights..Bull kak of rights.

You're another one now, who won't be allowed into her bunker, or as I more quaintly call it, Fort Clampett, come the Armageddon.