3 ms·

> Anyone got a solution to this part? A single, government run, national health service, paid for by taxation? Works OK for the rest of the world, and I don't

> Anyone got a solution to this part? A single, government run, national health service, paid for by taxation? Works OK for the rest of the world, and I don't quite buy the "US is subsidising the rest of the world's socialised health services" argument in the article. I read that pharmaceutical marketing spending is more than R&D spending (but still need to find a good source). http://www.google.com/search?&q=pharmaceutical+r%26d+marketing+spending http://www.google.com/search?&q=pharmaceutical+r%26d+mar...

dantheman 17y ago
Works OK for the rest of the world isn't a good answer -- the rest of the world doesn't have free speech, and the us constitution which does not provide for the federal government to do anything even remotely close to health care.
- bensummers 17y ago
  I know the UK has had some pretty bad attacks on civil liberties in the last few years, but I reckon we still have free speech. Quite frankly, as someone who has access to the NHS, I cannot believe how unethically the US handles health care. Surely even a single case of someone being financially ruined as a result of an illness is unacceptable, whether through being "uninsured" or the investigation department of your insurance company denying a claim? As for efficiency of public vs private, here are some costs we don't incur: Marketing of drugs to patients. Claim management staff. Billing to patients. "Investigation departments" of insurance companies. (I'm sure there are more.) Also, it sounds very time consuming to be caught up in the US health system. While we may have delays for non-acute procedures, acute health care is excellent and timely, and all you have to do is turn up at the appointed time.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    The UK is not even close to having free speech: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASBO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASBO 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_Kingdom
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  "the rest of the world doesn't have free speech" Wow! Only Americans have Free Speech(TM)! </sarcasm> you seem to be using the UK's Hate Speech Laws to prove that the UK doesn't have "free speech". Every country that allows "free speech" sets limits. For example, in the United States, "There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance" reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United... so, a definition of "free speech" has to be looser than "anyone can say anything he wants in any context with full impunity". No country in the world, including the United States, makes such an absolute guarantee. Most democracies (the real ones, not sham ones like in Iran) have "free speech" with boundaries depending on local culture and history.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    In general when most people speak of free speech they are concerned with political speech, not libel/slander/ordering an execution/shouting fire in a theatre. And I do agree that all campaign finance law is an act against free speech.
    - plinkplonk 17y ago
      "In general when most people speak of free speech they are concerned with political speech," exactly so. And by that definition the UK does have free speech. As do a lot of countries. Most of the democracies do. You brought up Hate Speech laws as some kind of free speech exception. I quote "the rest of the world doesn't have free speech". as for, "And I do agree that all campaign finance law is an act against free speech." that wasn't what the article implied so you can't "agree" ;-). But sure you can have an opinion. You are bringing in some custom vague definition of "free speech" (to claim the USA has some kind of monopoly on free speech) which doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. I am done with this thread. (I notice the article is dead too . reminder to self. Don't feed the troll)

dantheman 17y ago

Works OK for the rest of the world isn't a good answer -- the rest of the world doesn't have free speech, and the us constitution which does not provide for the federal government to do anything even remotely close to health care.

bensummers 17y ago
I know the UK has had some pretty bad attacks on civil liberties in the last few years, but I reckon we still have free speech. Quite frankly, as someone who has access to the NHS, I cannot believe how unethically the US handles health care. Surely even a single case of someone being financially ruined as a result of an illness is unacceptable, whether through being "uninsured" or the investigation department of your insurance company denying a claim? As for efficiency of public vs private, here are some costs we don't incur: Marketing of drugs to patients. Claim management staff. Billing to patients. "Investigation departments" of insurance companies. (I'm sure there are more.) Also, it sounds very time consuming to be caught up in the US health system. While we may have delays for non-acute procedures, acute health care is excellent and timely, and all you have to do is turn up at the appointed time.
- dantheman 17y ago
  The UK is not even close to having free speech: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASBO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASBO 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_Kingdom
plinkplonk 17y ago
"the rest of the world doesn't have free speech" Wow! Only Americans have Free Speech(TM)! </sarcasm> you seem to be using the UK's Hate Speech Laws to prove that the UK doesn't have "free speech". Every country that allows "free speech" sets limits. For example, in the United States, "There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance" reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United... so, a definition of "free speech" has to be looser than "anyone can say anything he wants in any context with full impunity". No country in the world, including the United States, makes such an absolute guarantee. Most democracies (the real ones, not sham ones like in Iran) have "free speech" with boundaries depending on local culture and history.
- dantheman 17y ago
  In general when most people speak of free speech they are concerned with political speech, not libel/slander/ordering an execution/shouting fire in a theatre. And I do agree that all campaign finance law is an act against free speech.
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    "In general when most people speak of free speech they are concerned with political speech," exactly so. And by that definition the UK does have free speech. As do a lot of countries. Most of the democracies do. You brought up Hate Speech laws as some kind of free speech exception. I quote "the rest of the world doesn't have free speech". as for, "And I do agree that all campaign finance law is an act against free speech." that wasn't what the article implied so you can't "agree" ;-). But sure you can have an opinion. You are bringing in some custom vague definition of "free speech" (to claim the USA has some kind of monopoly on free speech) which doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. I am done with this thread. (I notice the article is dead too . reminder to self. Don't feed the troll)