The political landscape of Britain has changed, and not for the better.
The Euro-election results have been worse for Labour than anyone I’ve read had been predicting, just 17% of the votes cast by the looks of things. The only place Labour managed to top the polls was in the north east of England where, it used to be said, they’d vote Labour if the candidate was a lamp-post. In Wales, Labour was beaten into third place behind the Tories and the idiots of UKIP. (That’s the worst electoral performance of Labour in Wales since 1918) The BNP managed to get 2 candidates elected, one in the north west England and the other in Yorkshire & Humberside (the place of my birth, I’m ashamed to say). The only bit of good news (as far as I’m concerned) is that the Greens had their two MEPs re-elected, though it is disappointing that they haven’t been able to extend their influence with the electorate.
The knives will be out for Gordon Brown, and many have spent the weekend honing their blades. He’ll no doubt be rueing the decision not to go to the polls much earlier. Euro-elections don’t mirror general elections very closely — people are much more inclined to vote for smaller parties in the European polls — but even so, there’s little doubt that if there was a General Election tomorrow, Labour would be annihilated.
The expenses scandal is taking the brunt of the blame, but I don’t buy that. A far as I’m concerned, the blame for the downfall of Gordon Brown lies further back, with Mr Squeaky Clean himself, Tony Blair. The Blairite project, and its ‘torification’ of Labour is what has doomed the party because it has seperated the party from its roots.
We are now faced with the awful prospect of another Conservative government. I’ve a feeling that the next few years are going to be a long haul.
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
Olive Morgan 06.08.09 at 8:53 am
Surely the fear of annihilation if a general election is called soon will save Gordon Brown because his opponents will not take the risk.
Simon 06.08.09 at 9:34 am
I don’t know Olive. The Conservative’s were pretty desperate when they deposed Margaret Thatcher, quite late in a parliament, and won the subsequent general election with John Major. The governing party retain the right to decide when the election is. I think the two outcomes are either a snap election very soon, or clinging on until the last moment next May, which is more likely. They could elect a new leader, but swapping the PM twice in the same electoral term would be remarkable, and I don’t think the electorate would stomach it. I think the problem at the moment is Labour have just lost the general public, who are angry about the recession, MPs expenses and so forth. I think they want them out, and would be outraged by swapping the leader again.
Don’t worry too much about the area of your birth electing the BNP Richard - it’s not as bad as actually living in the region now, as I do in the North West. Disappointingly, I know a lot of people who didn’t vote in this region. The region is large (as European areas tend to be), and hence encompasses the BNP’s local council strongholds in places like Burnley. There was always a risk that they could get a seat here. Depressingly, looking at the actual number, the BNP got 132,094 (8%), and the Green Party got 127,133 (7.7%), so just a few thousand more votes elsewhere would have kept them out. As it is, Nick Griffin himself is in. Turnout was just under 32%, so there was plenty of scope to keep them out.
A depressing day indeed, but hopefully it’ll wake people up and improve the turnout next time.
Micky 06.08.09 at 9:49 am
Well put Richard. The apathy (or cheesed-off belligerence) of voters is extraordinary. BNP got less votes than in the last European elections but got in because turnout was so appalling.
Rachel 06.08.09 at 10:45 am
In the Leicestershire County Council elections, 1 in 8 people voted BNP. I find that quite horrifying.
I wonder whether it’s partly that the Labour “tribe” that people used to belong to has lost so many of the things which used to hold it together? In the popular imagination (which is what counts in elections) these are things like manufacturing Trade Unions, non-conformist religion and a strong sense of being “working class” (which nowadays seems to be only the preoccupation of “celebs” like Kate Winslet). People still carry on voting by default until there’s another reason not to (it’s like me buying Lurpak butter my whole life for no other reason than it’s what my mother bought). I think a combination of the recession plus expenses has been a big enough reason to shift people from the default. Many “Labour” voters will have - for the first time in their voting lives - actually thought what they should vote. And I suspect that rather than thinking about the issues, a lot of people think - “what sort of person am I and where is the tribe that represents people like me?” The tribal Labour identity has faded to near transparency. Looking at the BNP literature, they seem to have been very successful in describing a tribal identity which people would not be ashamed of. So key words are things like hard-working; contributing; traditional; Christian; law-abiding…..
“White” or “Racist” don’t appear in the tribe’s self-description of course…
It begs the question of whether one should pander in any way to politics based on “tribe” rather than “principle” if it’s true that this describes the way many people vote in practice?
I don’t know a lot about politics so perhaps this is a pretty simplistic view - but then elections are won or lost by lots of people who don’t know much about politics going into little booths and putting crosses on ballot papers!
I also don’t know what will happen next. But like Richard, I have a sinking feeling about the years to come.
DH 06.08.09 at 4:42 pm
The fact that Cameron was the first leader to condemn the actions of the MP’s and was the most harsh in response to “phantom mortgages” by calling them to be “proszecuted under the full extent under the law” as well as having a lower percentage of MP’s as a party involved in the crisis than Labour are things that are more reasons for the Labour defeat.
Also as a people the UK is beginning to recognize, unlike the US where we need to learn this, that tax and spend is not something that helps an economy. Cameron for months, after watching CSPAN Parliament, has been trying to reign in Brown and other parties demands to tax and spend and the British people are tired of it. I listened waiting to get on the train to Belgium a British guy talking to a Euro guy and they both mentioned in strong words how tired of the raising of taxes and the enormous spending by their governments that has been going on. The Euro guy was in entire shock when he heard about the levels of taxation on cars, homes, etc. that is occurring compared with in Europe. I didn’t catch the specific percentages but the look on the face of the Euro guy and saying “wow that is high” was all I needed to see and here. Maybe in 4 years for the Presdiency and next year in Congress the Americans would learn from the latest polls in Britain which speak of a Tory landslide.
Tony Buglass 06.08.09 at 10:52 pm
So, if you want to really freak out a “Euro guy” with regard to taxation, take him to Sweden. They have a fantastic health service, excellent public transport, superb local government - and a much higher level of income and local taxation than anything we’ve seen. And they are very happy with that.
As I said the other day, “tax and spend” is a caricature. Sme nations tax much more highly than we do. Others less. The US I think taxes much less than the UK - but I’d rather have our health care than yours any day. And if that means paying more income tax, fair enough.
Richard 06.08.09 at 11:09 pm
You might not have noticed that Cameron has had his own bit of mortgage scandal, DH.
Don’t forget that tax rates across borders aren’t always easy to compare: you have to look at the whole deal, not just an individual tax. We might pay higher headline tax rates here, but we don’t pay massive premiums to private insurance companies for our healthcare.
Kim 06.09.09 at 1:51 pm
I’ve just returned from the University (of Swansea) where I’d popped into the library to peruse a few periodicals, including The New York Review of Books. I came across one by Rick Shenkman entitled Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth about the American Voter. Although the Yanks undoubtedly top the league table on this one – I mean Dubya getting two terms, and then McCain running Obama close and holding his own in the popular vote: once may be an accident, twice carelessness, but thrice is, er, a stupidity – still, I reckon there’s a British version of the book waiting to be written.
DH 06.09.09 at 9:47 pm
Richard and Tony, I have one question. If our nations healthcare is so bad, then why do people from all over the world come here to get their health proceedures done? Also all of these nations who have the high taxes, how are they paying for the high level of debt? Look at Iceland, they are bankrupt and they have a similar level of taxes and benefits to Sweden. If they want to shoot their grandkids economic feet that may be fine in their eyes but that doesn’t mean that what they are doing for their people is the best for them as a nation. The fact is the nations who are more “socialistic” have way more higher per capita debt. Again one only has to look at Iceland to see what can happen when what you call being deceived as a “caricature” is actually a fact.
Also we do NOT pat an exorbinate level in healthcare premiums. My employer and I pay combioned $150 a month for very good healthcare. From what I heard from the Euro guy and the UK guy I definitely know that the amount of “extra tax” you all pay is WAY more than the $150 a month we pay for our health insurance premium. So when one looks at the WHOLE deal it is NOT as you present when one looks at the true facts of what is paid for healthcare in the US in relation to the higher level of taxes.
Richard 06.09.09 at 10:34 pm
I didn’t say that your healthcare is bad. It isn’t. If you can pay, in some ways it is probably the best in the world. But despite the undoubted problems of the NHS, I still wouldn’t swap it for your system.
When I visited the US in 2002, I had a couple of brushes with the hospital system. The first was personal. A minor injury meant a visit to the emergency room of the local hospital. The first person I saw was neither a doctor or a nurse, but an administrator. I got no where near any treatment until my ability to pay was verified. My financial situation took priority over my medical need. I’d be tempted to assume that if my need had been more urgent things would have been different, but a colleague was taken ill with appendicitis while in the US last year and she faced exactly the same issue. I don’t care what anyone says: that just can’t be right in a civilised and wealthy society.
On the same trip to the US I had to take a young man to hospital with a broken leg. He was a a foster chiild and covered by the Medicaid programme. Unfortunately, the hospital we took him to did not take part in Medicaid, so he was simply strapped up and given some mild pain killers. It was almost 48 hours before he received proper treatment.
I keep hearing about the benefits of a system which is privately rather than government run. But what I see is an awful lot of waste and bureaucracy.
Kim 06.10.09 at 10:15 am
A few years ago, visiting my mom in NY, I had an accident and cut my eye. My mom drove me to the local ER - no ambulance - where I took two stitches, nothing else, no X-rays, scans, etc., just the two stitches. Back in the UK a month later, I received the bill in the post, forwarded by my mother: it was like $700! A month later, I received another forwarded bill: another $700! It turns out the first bill was the hospital charge, the second the surgeon’s charge. For two friggin’ stitches! Luckily, my travel insurance covered the costs.
The cost of medical care in the States, and the lack of a NHS - this is not civilisation, it’s barbarism.
Beth 06.10.09 at 11:01 am
Yowsers! Having broken a leg twice (more accurately, a foot on the second occasion), I can attest that mild painkillers and strapping are not going to do a d*** thing to help. If a doctor in the UK did that, I think there’d be a pretty clear case for claiming medical neglect. It’s horrendous to think that a doctor’s primary responsibility should be to accountants rather than to his suffering patients. It raises the question of how a doctor can ethically work within a system such as the American one.
DH 06.10.09 at 1:44 pm
Richard, so $150.00 a month premium, with $20 copay and no deductible is too much? That seems strange. You still haven’t even addressed the problems with all of these “Socialistic” nations with regard to their deficits and with Iceland being bankrupt. If you expect government to solve the problems so much that it puts an economic strain on the system that can’t be good for future generations who will have to face higher interest rates, inflation, unemployment, etc.
It can’t be right in a civilized society that future generations have to face higher unemployment, higher interest rates, inflation, etc. because people demand more from government that it can’t give aka Iceland and many other European nations who are facing crisis due to over abundance of discretionary spending that these nations cannot afford.
Richard 06.10.09 at 5:11 pm
There’s a fundamental difference between us here, DH. You seem to believe that medical treatment should be provided according to ability to pay. I believe that treatment should be provided according to medical need. Yes, there’s a problem facing us as increasingly expensive treatments become available. I’m not saying I have all the answers. But, when push comes to shove, it seems to me that to have medical treatment rationed according to personal wealth is utterly unjust.
Beth 06.10.09 at 5:31 pm
DH - I couldn’t afford to pay that for medical insurance. I’m sure there are a lot of people in the US who, for various circumstances, can’t afford it either. How can we justify leaving someone in agony because they can’t afford treatment? I would rather pay higher interest rates than think of my fellow human beings suffering. Simple as that.
The real problem for a lot of modern states is not systems such as the NHS, it’s over-inflated bureaucracy. We urgently need to cut down on the middle-management class, which costs money not only to maintain, but also through horrendous inefficiency.
DH 06.10.09 at 6:37 pm
Beth and Richard, you two might not understand that we have “Medicaid” and “State coverage” for people who are unable to pay or at least fall below a certain income level. So to say that people are turned away for inability to pay is not a proper understanding of how the US healthcare system works.
Richard you mentioned solely interest rates and the problem of these “costs” is way beyond that. You forget about inflation AND more importantly unemployment. Are you willing to have a higher number of the people in your country unemployed to have the “Socialism” that you have? It seems to me that what you subscribe makes people overal less off and makes more people than otherwise living below their means. I still believe it is a travesty to have a greater number hurting financially aka Iceland for having “socialism” with regard to health care. Would you be willing to not have a job and have health care or have a job and pay $5 a day (at the most) for health care? I personally would rather have the job or for poor people to have a job than otherwise.
Beth, I know there are people who might not be able to afford to pay for the premium but you forget that the $150 a month is a combination of employer and employee amount. Not all of this is paid by the employee. I mentioned that “combined amount” for me to include people who are “self-employed” or choose to cover themselves without having insurance through their employer. So If you are employed would you be able to afford $75 a month with the employer paying the other half (typically that is how it is in the US sometimes the employer pays the entire premium)? Also I find it surprising that a high amount could not afford the $150 a month or the $75 a month that I mentioned especially since typically the employer takes out the money on a “pre-tax” basis prorated per paycheck. What one finds is that due to the premium being “pre-tax” one actually has a higher “takehome pay” than otherwise. So with these additional facts it is still rather surprising.
I will want to clarify that I DON’T believe that the US health care system is “perfect” but no health care system is. I will say that it is better than many nations to the point that people from all over the world come to America for health care even with their particular governments paying. So I would like to add that the “pre-existing conditi0ns” is what really makes it difficult and is a problem with the US system and that is where the McCain plan on health care addresses this within the tax code so that more and more people who are hurting have their healthcare funded by having a higher number of people paying less on their taxes or be in lower tax brackets.
Beth and Richard I do agree with you with regard to the “beaurocracy and inefficiency” that is why I don’t support “government programs” with regard to these issues. The big issue is the lawsuits and I believe the “beouracracy” problem is associated with “protecting doctors butts” and health care workers butts from lawsuits than anything else. One really must address the American problem of the need for “tort reform”. That is the main reason why the cost for proceedures that insurance companies have to pay is high.
DH 06.10.09 at 6:39 pm
I will say (being humorous) that I loose about $2 a day in change on average everyday and I’m in no means “rich” so $2 a day is not far off from the $5 a day I mentioned. (remmebr that is on the high end)
Allan R., Bevere 06.10.09 at 8:38 pm
Richard:
Help me out here. I am clearly no expert when it comes to European politics, so I won’t even venture to comment. You write, “The expenses scandal is taking the brunt of the blame, but I don’t buy that. A far as I’m concerned, the blame for the downfall of Gordon Brown lies further back, with Mr Squeaky Clean himself, Tony Blair. The Blairite project, and its ‘torification’ of Labour is what has doomed the party because it has seperated the party from its roots.”
How is it that such a “torification” that I take to be a move to the right, led to an election that moved to the right?
Please enlighten me.
Tony Buglass 06.10.09 at 8:44 pm
The fact of the matter, DH, is that US health care depends on ability to pay. If you don’t have health insurance (and that means a LOT of folk in the good ole land of the free) then you go without proper health care. That stinks. Whatever problems there are with the NHS, health care is free at the point of need, and is delivered when needed, not when you can show you can pay for it.
And if you thank that’s “socialistic” that says more about you than it does about your understanding of the issues. Is it not a thoroughly Christian value for the community to provide for its members, especially the sick and weak?
Tony Buglass 06.10.09 at 8:51 pm
Further to your comments about insurance, you talk about $150 a month. My stipend as a Methodist minister is about £20,000 a year. I don’t have to pay rent or mortgage, only gas and electricity. I know a good number of folk who earn less than me, and do have housing costs. I would struggle to find another £100 a month - as it is, when dentistry fell out of the NHS a few eyars ago we had to join a private scheme, for which we pay quarterly - had that happened a few years earlier, we’d not have been able to afford it. Seriously. There are a lot of folk in the UK who have very bad teeth because they can’t get dental care - and that really is a scandal, in the fourth largest world economy.
If we really were “socialistic” and that meant there was less of a gap between haves and have nots, rich and poor, then I suspect that sort of issue would not arise. But Britain is capitalist, despite its avowedly Labour government, and that has a downside - there are too many poor who drop out of the net.
DH 06.10.09 at 9:32 pm
Sorry, for the additional response that is long that you have as “awaiting moderation”. It really has a good clarification into the American system that you and others might not be aware of. Also, I was able to clarify my original response in a more accurate way. If you could put it into status posted so others can read it it would be great. Enjoying the discussion and hope others are too. We all can learn from each other. No system is perfect. We all need to remember that and each have the “law of unintended consequences” in affect.
Richard 06.11.09 at 3:04 pm
Allan — I can understand your confusion. British politics has moved to the right. Mrs Thatcher undoubtedly won the ideological battle and the Labour Party, under Mr Blair’s leadership, more or less completely capitulated to the ideology of the Market. Many traditional Labour voters now have no one to vote for if they want a reasonable chance of being represented, and large numbers stayed away from the polling booths last Thursday. The election of BNP candidates last week wasn’t due to an increase in their vote. The number of people who voted for them hardly changed. Fell, even. But their proportion of the vote increased because Labour voters stayed away. At least, that’s how I read it.
Richard 06.11.09 at 3:13 pm
>> “Beth and Richard, you two might not understand that we have “Medicaid”…”
DH, if only you troubled to read what I had written, you would have realised that I specifically mentioned Medicaid. The hospital I visited with my young friend did not participate in the scheme — it had a large notice saying so in the waiting room. Consequently, the poor young fellow was denied any proper treatment. I talked to his foster mother afterwards. She told me about the completely different experience she had when visiting the doctor with her foster son, compared with when she went with her ‘natural’ children (covered by the family’s medical insurance). I don’t understand how you can justify that at all.
DH 06.11.09 at 3:27 pm
Tony, can you find an extra 35 pounds a month under the facts that I mentioned with regard to US healthcare premiums? Also it appears that you failed to recognize that people below certain income levels DO have adequate care under State government health care as opposed to the Federal government. When one understands this then what is presented is actually not as bad as how the press presents it (I agree the press can be biased as you mentioned with regard to UK press
)
One mustn’t misrepresent health care for those who don’t have health insurance because 1) many who don’t can afford health insurance premiums but choose to take the risk 2) while they don’t have health insurance they are still covered by the particular State governments Medicaid program. The fact of the matter you don’t seem to understand that Iceland and other European countries are having economic problems of inflation, high interest rates, unemployment, etc. because of the programs you describe. Again I have NEVER said the US health care system is perfect. If you reread what I said preexisting conditions overaffecting premiums is an area that can be address by the government without government sponsered plan. The problems you mentioned can be solved without government dictating health care. For me government is inefficient in these areas. They are good at times on regulations but when government on any particular issue is the sole provider that is where problems arise.
Wow 100 pounds a quarter for dental coverage. In the US our premiums for dental coverage is equivilent to 15 pounds a month. I wonder why dental coverage is higher than in the US? If one takes out the government making it free I wonder if what the government pays for health care is higher than what the US pays for premiums and health care combined? Maybe one needs to address the problems of affordability by looking at the cost of service as opposed to solely premiums because even though the UK has government health care the price paid by the government just doesn’t go away it is reflected in your national debt which future generations will have to pay for or you become in the worst case like Iceland.
Again I’m not saying the US health care system is perfect. We have problems but that doesn’t necesitate having government contral ALL of our health care. There are ways aka McCain proposal that can address this without government taking care of everything.
Tony Buglass 06.11.09 at 4:06 pm
No, I never said £100 a month for dental care. It’s more like £40 a quarter for my wife and I. The £100 a quarter was my translation of your $150 a month for health insurance. Which would be impossible for me on my stipend, and I don’t count myself as poor.
Sorry, but your protestations don’t cut it. Not all hospitals do Medicaid, not all hospitals take all insurance packages: one of my church members fell and broke her leg when visiting the Niagara Falls; she had full insurance, but the US hospital they took her to wouldn’t accept it - she’d have to pay up front for treatment. Instead, her friends took her in the car (with a broken leg!) some 30 miles to a Candian hospital, which treated her immediately. My brother lives in the US, and has fairly major health issues, and I’ve heard some of his tales of the difficulty of getting health insurance on a low wage and getting proper treatement - which in this country would be no problem.
Iceland and other European countries are having economic problems of inflation, high interest rates, unemployment, etc. because of the programs you describe.”
Too simplistic. Where such problems exist, they are not simply to do with health care provision. Is Sweden suffering the kind of problems you describe? Finland? I don’t think so? It really is not beyond the power of an economy like the US to provide a proper health cover which is free at the point of need. It is obviously beyond the will. I find that reprehensible. I was stunned a year or so ago to hear an American Methodist speak of the number of churches which have feeding programs to help the poor in the US. Something badly wrong there - and that was before the current recession, sub-prime-stimulated crisis began. Not good.
DH 06.11.09 at 4:48 pm
I mentioned Iceland as an example. Have you analyzed the national debt of these nations? How do you expect these nations to pay? How about the high levels of unemployment in these European nations? America has 9% unemployment and inflation at around 5% many of these nations have inflation well higher than that and unemployment in the teens? Again people who have jobs who wouldn’t have jobs DOES make people more poor than otherwise. While you may say that it is too simplistic to say that the nations having economic problems is due to health care issues, one cannot deny that it has a major part to play. Government discretionary social spending shouldn’t be done in such a way that it burdens future generations economic situation. I mentioned Iceland NOT that many nations are experiencing what they are but that if these nations don’t deal with the situations like I described that Iceland failed to do then these nations may face a future dilema that Iceland is facing. The fact remains with Iceland they had a huge national debt to the point of bankruptcy and it was due majorily on social spending that the constiuencies demanded that the government couldn’t pay.
You say “It really is not beyond the power of an economy like the US to provide a proper health cover which is free at the point of need.”
Sorry that is inaccurate no health care is “free”. It may intially be free but ultimately someone will pay whether it be the government by having a higher national debt or some combination of employee/employer/government/state/etc.
Again, I never said the US system is perfect. I DO have compassion for all of the problems you mentioned as examples but there are many many other ways to solve these problems than have a Canadian/UK/government,etc. system. McCain came up with a system that addresses these issue without government being too involved.
Allso mentioned earlier of the problem of prexisting conditions kind of similar to your brothers issue. Again I nver said the US system was perfect but to have a false sense of security in the Canadian/UK/etc. system is dilusional when one looks at what can happened to Iceland as a warning. Why make it all or nothing when there are areas of solution in between? I’m not saying nothing should be done with the US system but one mustn’t say that nothing should be done with regard to Canada/UK/etc. systems.
Beth 06.11.09 at 4:59 pm
DH, “free at the point of need” means something very different from “free”. It means that government money, including tax money, goes into the system, so that when someone needs treatment, they get it, regardless of whether they have a penny in their pocket or not. It means that, when I went to the hospital with a broken leg, I was seen and treated immediately - not sent away with minor painkillers to find another hospital that might be willing to treat me. And I know that if - God forbid - either my parents or I should develop a terminal illness and need significant care, I won’t be driven to bankruptcy as many people are in the US.
The dental problem here is already bad enough. I have family members who can’t afford the costs and just have to suffer in pain because no-one will treat them. It’s inhumane.
DH 06.11.09 at 5:25 pm
Beth, you are right and what I point out are problems that can’t be denied. So what are you going to do when the government has such a high national debt that it can’t afford to pay aka Iceland? (Not that your nation or others will go to that level but a higher potential for that to occur than otherwise)
If you reread many times what I said I have never denied that problems of the US health system. I just don’t believe having a UK or Canadian or anyother system is the answer for the reasons I described. One can attempt to solve these “US problems” without going to these extremes which cause higher national debts that can potentially lead to the problems Iceland is facing. At some point if one doesn’t address national debt of which social discretionary spending is big chunk then you lead to the “law of unintended consequences” that have to be addressed sometime. It’s inhumane for Iceland to experience what they are facing due to extremely high demands for social discretionary spending.
Again, I agree the cost of healthcare whoever pays has to be addressed. To me having 100 pound premium for dental coverage in the UK as compared with 17 pound equivilent in the US seems rather shocking as to why one nations dental coverage is higher than in other nations. That example in dental can be a great analogy to the medical problems we face as well.
Tony Buglass 06.11.09 at 10:53 pm
Look, DH, read what I wrote not what you think I wrote. We do not have £100 premium for dental care - that was my translation of your $150 a month. My dental care costs less than £40 a quarter.
As to the cost of health care and national debt - Iceland has major problems which are due to a number of factors, not just social spending. Britain has a significant and growing national debt which is due to a multiplicity of factors, of which health care is actually relatively minor. I suggest defence spending is a bigger issue. I don’t have the figures to hand, but we have just phased out the Sea Harrier and joined the naval squadrons with the RAF Harrier squadrons to form the Joint Harrier Force, while buying another tranche or Eurofighters which have to be bought to replace the Jaguars which were retired last year; teh Harriers must keep going until we get the F35s and the two new carriers to operate them - we are taking billions of pounds, not dollars. Then there are the new generation of nukes, and the missiles to fly them an dthe submarines to carry them - more billions (trillions?), to say nothhing of the replacement transports and military equipment needed to suport the campaign in Afghanistan.
I could go on, but alongside that lot, the NHS is dirt cheap. My point is quite simple. The community needs health care, however costly it may be. What we have can be equitably divided to provide according to need. It’s not a lot per capita, but private health insurance is beyond the reach of many. That stinks - it is the immoral face of capitalism. If that means you label me as socialist, fine - I will say that a Christian social ethic demands a socialist response at that point, and capitalism is at that point demonic, because it subordinates people to economics. And that is a theological point which the kind of privatised religion common in the US and in Tory folk in British churches have simply failed to address.
DH 06.12.09 at 2:44 pm
Tony, again for the upteenth time I do NOT believe the US health care system is perfect and I DO believe some changes need to be made. However, I do NOT believe that we need to have a system that is equivilent to the UK or Canada or Obama’s plan. There are ways to get poor people health care coverage affordably without making it a socialistic. To label my view as being “demonic” is really the type of demigodary that needs to be refrained from.
With regard to spending discrtionary spending is WAY more in absolute dollars than defense spending. I mentioned health care as one of the many things within discretionary SOCIAL spending that led to the downfall of Iceland and has the potential to do in many European nations. The solution to the problems we have discussed do NOT have to go from one extreme or the other (US status quo which is unacceptable vs. more socialism which is unacceptable). We can address the problems of uninsured people, higher costs of health care, etc. without going to a European model which can contribute to very high national debts. Military spending is relatively low in relation to combining discretionary social spending. The facts are there to support it.
All I was trying to point out was that the US health care system is not as bad as it is being portrayed and that the UK and Canadian system is not as good as it is being portrayed. I believe there are was to solve the problems that I agree with you, Richard and Beth accurately voiced but NOT with type of solution you all have mentioned.
DH 06.12.09 at 6:39 pm
Richard, I hope that my latest response awaiting moderation is acceptable. I hope I’m not looked at as being too “critical” that is not the intent for none of the statements are “yelling”. Saying “upteenth” can be taken “harsh” but I couldn’t come up with any other word. Tony, I’m sorry for ussing “upteenth time”. I’m really trying to relay that I agree with you with regard to the problem of the poor not having health care coverage it is the solution to that problem and the lack of recognition to the problems of the “European model” for health care that we disagree.
Tony Buglass 06.12.09 at 9:40 pm
“Tony, I’m sorry for ussing “upteenth time”. I’m really trying to relay that I agree with you…”
No need to apologise, at all - at least not for how you express yourself. I mean, you can’t help it if you’re just wrong…
The point as far as I’m concerned in this debate is that the US model of health care is seriously flawed. The UK model is not as difficult as you seem to imply, and the European models vary but some of them have a very good welfare state without crippling their economies. The people are happy to pay for them through their taxes. It’s a nod in the direction of socialism, but not the Stalinism which cripples and stagnates things. And it is ethically better than privatised capitalism.
malc 06.13.09 at 5:36 pm
I voted!!
DH 06.15.09 at 3:01 pm
“Tony, again for the upteenth time I do NOT believe the US health care system is perfect…” So are you saying that I’m wrong to say that the US system is not perfect.
Again why does the US need to go full board to the European system when there are way to solve the problems you mentioned with the US system without going to that particular health care system? Why the need to go from one extreme to the other when there are infinite was to solve the problems?
I agree that the US systems has major problems that need to be corrected but you are wrong to imply that the european system is not flawed. Also at this moment the system is not crippling their economies but who is to say as more and more people within these type of economies demand more from the government that it won’t be like Iceland is now? The fact remains that while many of the European nations are not having their economies crippled by the social spending that doesn’t mean that in the future as debts continue to rise that these nations won’t face the problems similar to those occurring in Iceland let alone all of the many more people who would have had jobs otherwise by having a different system.
So are you saying your happy to have “big brother” take your money?
Richard 06.15.09 at 4:21 pm
You talk of a European healthcare system. But there’s no such thing. The system in, say, France or Germany is quite different to Britain.
What it boils down to is this: in Britain we have a consensus that a modern, civilised and wealthy nation should not ration healthcare according to the wealth of the sick. I know that makes us appear to be all-but communists to our US cousins, but there it is. Healthcare should be delivered according to need, not by ability to pay. It’s as simple as that.
DH 06.15.09 at 5:28 pm
But Richard, couldn’t you address the need/ability to pay issue without having a UK/France/Germany/EU/etc. system? That is all I’m saying. Also while the US does have problems with their health care system at least our social discretionary spending is limited as such to lower the possibility of having crisises similar to the ones that Iceland has. It has been analyzed at agnosium that if the US went to a system similar to what is in Canada/Europe/etc. that it would raise the US national debt by $9 Trillion dollars. IMHO, that would hurt our economic situation to Iceland. So the question is, couldn’t we have a system that is not US ststus quo or European/UK/Canada/etc. on the one end?
To deny the problems of the US system is living in lala land even though there are aspects of the system that is better than the rest of the world. To deny the problems of the European/UK/France/etc. is also living in lala land even though there are aspects that is better than most. The fact remains we can solve these problems without going from one extreme or the other.
You say “Healthcare should be delivered according to need, not by ability to pay.” Well I believe this can be solved without going to the type of systems you have mentioned whcih clearly have their own problems which many here simply choose to ignore.
Why people choose to ignore these clear problems I don’t know. Why people choose to ignore aspects of the US system that are actually better than the rest of the world where we don’t ration cataract surgeries like in Canada as of May 2009 I don’t know. I just don’t want the government to determine which medical proceedures are necessary. If I have a cataract and need surgery I shouldn’t have to wait until I get closer to the point of blindness like they do in Canada.
Kim 06.15.09 at 5:32 pm
I find it curious, DH, that you are happy to have the government take your money - LOTS of money - to wage war, but not to tend the sick. The government, who is good old Uncle Sam when it engages in mass murder, suddenly becomes “big brother” when it comes to universal health care. That seems to me, theologically at least, a rather obscene fiscal calculus. In the judgement scene in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus praises those “nations” (v. 31) whose people care for the sick (v. 36); I don’t see any heavenly kudos for corporate killers. No doubt I am missing something.
Richard 06.15.09 at 5:45 pm
Yes, Kim. You’ve been in Britain too long and have missed that while the Bible says that the government has the right to bear the sword, it doesn’t charge the government with providing healthcare. Therefore…
DH 06.15.09 at 6:56 pm
Kim and Richard, why throw out red-herrings (if we assume and I I’m being VERY generous). Have I ever said that the poor should NOT be care for by the US health care system? no Have I ever said that the US health care system is perfect? absolutely not So it DOES seem that you are missing something. I also take issue with regard to “Uncle Sam murdering” when the definition of murder is the intentional killing of innocent people. The US did NOT do that sort of thing.
I find it curious that you fail to recognize that I DO believe that the US health care system needs to be modified. I also find it curious that you don’t identify the problems associated with high social discretionary spending by governments which have the potential to hurt a country like in the extreme Iceland.
While I have clearly identified the problems with the US system the fact remains we DO care for the sick and a person who needs a cataract is not turned away like it is in Canada/UK/France, etc. How dare they say that a person who is sick who has cataracts should be denied care. Sounds an awful lot like the “pot calling the kettle black”.
DH 06.15.09 at 7:05 pm
I read this article and it was very interesting and enlightening it seems that my analysis I have described is not off base:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/26/16492/069
Tony Buglass 06.15.09 at 9:47 pm
The article you quote is interesting, DH, given that it’s 5 years old and may be out of date in certain respects. It also doesn’t actually address any of the principles we raised, nor does it verify your analysis. I suspect there are places where a CT scan IS available during the night - especially if it’s an emergency.
I spent a few years as a part-time hospital chaplain during the Conservative regime of the 1980s. I really didn’t like what I saw, and my experience in caring for folk in my own churches has underlined my feelings that there are serious problems when health care is budget driven rather than need or patient-driven. I could give you a good few stories. A hospital pathology lab in one of the leading hospitals in the north of England was told it had to cut £10,000 from its operating budget. Not the staff budget, the operating udget. This was the lab which received samples taken from patients still out on the table, did a TS analysis and was able to tell the surgeon whether the sample was malignant or not, so he could decide how much to take out. The Area Health Authority was tasked with overseeing the necessary budget cut, so it appointed an accounting officer to oversee the necessary cuts - his salary was about £10,000 (this was the early 198s, under Mrs Thatcher). What that really meant was that in order to achieve the budget efficiencies required, they lab really had to achieve a £20K efficiency saving. This was utter nonsense, but we as chaplains had to support the manager while he worked through this crap. I also had an elderly couple; he was dependent on her for driving and everything. She needed a new hip - she was told there was awaiting-list of over a year for the first examination, and a further 6 months for the operation, but if she went private (and paid about £10,000) it could all be sorted in less than 2 months. Now, why should she have to spend her life-savings to get their problems sorted out and be free of horrible pain, when she has been paying her taxes for this service for years? That was 15 years ago, under Mrs Thatcher - you will understand I have little time for Conservative monetarism when it does that to good people. In effect, that Tory Government sanctioned queue-jumping for the well-off. That stinks.
To come back to your points - I’m sure there are aspects of US health care which are superb, as there are aspects of UK health care which are excellent. There are probably also aspects of each which are rubbish. I don’t really think we’re trying to suggest that either of us has got it utterly right or utterly wrong. We’re looking at the underlying principles, in our case that health care is available free at the point of need. I can’t comment about Canadian rationing of cataract operations, because I know nothing about them. My only knowledge of the Canadian hospital system is from the church member who broke a leg , and was turned away by a US hospital because she didn’t have the right insurance, but was accepted immediately by a Canadian one.The bottom line, which I repeat I view as a Christian principle, is that we as a community have a duty of care to the weak and suffering. If that’s socialism, colour me red, and make it a very deep red.
Richard 06.15.09 at 10:14 pm
What are you talking about, DH? No one is denied care here. Average waiting time for a cataract op is about 80-90 days, according to region. That’s not ideal, but it is a long way from denial. And emergency care is always offered immediately and without question. Unless things have changed in the States, my experience is that this isn’t the case your side of the water.
You’re missing Kim’s point, which is surely that your attitude to taxation and government spending is bizarre from a Christian perspective. Or at least, that’s how it looks from over here.
Bishop Alan Wilson 06.16.09 at 6:50 am
A bit of a footnote, but, as someone who is generally very friendly to the US I was horrified, amazed and fascinated to see on p 80 of Wilkinson & Picket’s “Spirit Level” (A compendium of statistics relating to inequality from around the world) that a child in rural Greece actually has a life expectancy 1.2 years higher than a US baby. Of course the moneyed upper echelons of US society have the highest life expectancies in the world, but when you factor in the poverty and inequality of the majority, that’s the figure you get, across the board. How can that be done, in a nation that spends three times as much per head on health care than Greece? Is the money going to insurance companies, or what? One can only imagine what the prophet Amos would have to say about it…
Beth 06.16.09 at 10:05 am
To add to what Tony was saying, it seems pretty evident that the surgeon in that article wasn’t working in the accident and emergency department (the ER), where scans and suchlike are obviously available because they are immediately necessary.
Basically, one guy, five years ago, thought that what he saw in one English hospital meant that the entire NHS was less good than the US system. Note also that he has a vested interest in believing in the US system - i.e. he works in it. He doesn’t explain why it’s better to have a senior physician present at every single procedure - again, presumably it’s to his advantage to put around the idea that this is ideal, since it inflates his own importance and image.
I’d like to see some objective studies comparing the US system and the NHS… I’ll have a look at PubMed later and see what I can find.
DH 06.16.09 at 2:46 pm
Beth, the “Daily Kos” was mentioned because the writer is WAY more liberal than myself so as to show the “objectivity” so your implication that it is “less than objective” seems to be false.
Richard, how is my view on taxation and spending bizarre from a Christian perspective if taxation and spending is what leads a country to have MORE poor people?
Again I HAVE said that the US health care needs to have a way for poor people to be covered but that does NOT mean that we should have a system similar to the coutries of Europe or even Canada.
The fact remains free at the point of need is not free and ultimately a nations will have to pay for it and face the potential ramifications of all of that spending. One brings up military spending but the fact is that the dollars are small in comparison to discretionary social spending which takes up way more of a nations budget in the Western world.
Richard, why force people who are able to pay to travel half way around the world to get surgery? Also who determines if it is an emergency or not? Why should a person go blind to have surgery?
Again for the many times I have said the US has Medicare and Medicaid for people who are poor who need health care. There are people who make a little too much who aren’t covered and again for the many times I cannot even count the US system is not perfect and needs changed but that does NOT mean we need one like Richard, Tony, Beth, etc. have described.
“No one is denied care here.” Being put on a wait list for 90 days it might as well bbe denied let alone forcing people to go to other nations to prevent oneself from going blind. Here we don’t have to go to other nations and we get service much quicker. If one wants to talk about Christian thing preventing people from going blind is a Christian thing.
Tony Buglass 06.16.09 at 3:58 pm
“.. the writer is WAY more liberal than myself so as to show the “objectivity” so your implication that it is “less than objective” seems to be false.”
Doesn’t follow. More or less liberal has nothing to do with objectivity or subjectivity - indeed, I’d say some of the liberal writers I’ve led are less objective because their liberalism depends upon a modernist analysis. We all have our presuppositions. In this case, the writer may or may not think he is being obejctive, but he’s years out of touch now, and doesn’t have anything like an overview of the NHS.
“Being put on a wait list for 90 days it might as well bbe denied let alone forcing people to go to other nations to prevent oneself from going blind. Here we don’t have to go to other nations and we get service much quicker.”
Only if you can pay for it. Again, please note the distinction between emergency care and non-urgent treatment - if you are brought into a UK hospital with an urgent need, you will be treated urgently, including CT scans or whatever is needed. That is the norm. It is the norm to wait your turn for routine treatment, but the length of the wait should not be excessive. Whatever faults and failings there may be in New Labour, they have pressed hard to improve health care targets - unlike the Tories, who cut costs in order to cut taxes, closed wards, and increased waiting lists to silly lengths - like 18 months (in agony) for a hip or knee replacement.
“…free at the point of need is not free…” No such thing as a free lunch. The question is who pays, and when. We prefer to share the cost among the whole community, so that everyone can have treatment when they need it, whether or not they could personally afford it. You prefer to leave the burden of cost to those who need care, which means those who cannot afford it don’t get the care they need. Ethical?
As to the comparisons of military and welfare spending - for the cost of a Trident submarine and its contents, we could buy and equip a clutch of hospitals. The proposed new aircraft carriers will cost trillions, in addition to the new F35 V/STOL jets we need to buy to operate from them. And I do have some questions about spending billions on missile subs we hope we’ll never need to use, instead of on hospitals we definitely do need. OK, perhaps we do need to match other nations’ forces, but that doesn’t make the balance of terror ethical or moral, just the best of a very bad job.
Richard 06.16.09 at 4:45 pm
>> “Being put on a wait list for 90 days it might as well bbe denied let alone forcing people to go to other nations to prevent oneself from going blind”
Now you’re just being silly. Cataracts develop slowly and progressively: they’re (very) important, but not usually urgent. Of course it would be better if no one had to wait at all. The system isn’t perfect. As for ‘forcing people to go to other nations’, you think we don’t have health insurance and private hospitals for those who want (and can afford) them?