what happened when your country got an nhs?

@jb78000 (15173)
April 8, 2010 2:22am CST
here i have to admit dreadful ignorance about recent history in my own. i do not know what the response to britain getting national healthcare was. i doubt it was fury or panic about how the uk would suddenly turn into the ussr but i don't know. if your country has one what was the response? if it doesn't what do you think the response would be?
3 people like this
8 responses
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
8 Apr 10
I'm writing this under the assumption that the American public's rejection of government-controlled healthcare is playing a part in this post. Well, comparing America's reaction to the reaction of other countries wouldn't be a fair scale to begin with. I don't know the exact details of how the British Empire evolved/devolved to the UK, but I'm taking a stab in the dark here by stating that your respective government has always played a larger role in citizens' lives than America's government was designed to play in ours. Our country was created to be the antithesis of a system where a regime held power over the people. Ours was to be a country by the people, for the people. I admit, many of the healthcare bashers are bashing based on hyperbole and really need to dial it back some. But there are millions upon millions of Americans who firmly believe government dictating to citizens is very bad news. And then there's the question of our country going COMPLETELY bankrupt. I'm not sure if folks outside of the US--or even IN the US for that matter!--are aware, but government's healthcare projections past have been dramatically off, costing up to 17-times more than what was speculated (read: told to people as a bold-face lie to stifle doom-and-gloom reaction). If that even comes close to happening now, we're don'fer! Unfortunately, our government is inept. It's inept because the political setup of America runs contrary to the human condition's best-loved bad trait: Greed. In other countries that have always been under stricter government controls, the transition into another new entitlement program is no big deal. Respective politicians are even a tad more reliable, I suspect, as it's more a common job and common role in a place where government is larger, and not a rush to be rich and famous as with American culture. American politicians seem to be unable to handle the simplest of things due to the overwhelming amount of special interests, victimology, big business and plain corrupt officials who wish to pad their pockets or become authoritative figures instead of American representatives. Our politicians are attempting to be the Roman elite dictators in a country that forbade that long ago, and so nearly every single thing they do is behind our backs, under the table, and in an attempt to keep the blinders on us while playing their political games at our expense. Enough folks in America buy into it and choose sides, but enough of us do not and realize full well that, if government's behind something, it needs to be thoroughly debated, voted on fairly and then put and left under the microscope for the duration. If not, things go incredibly wrong and we all pay the price. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is the rest of the world, and we're expected to blend in with the fray because it's the "normal" and "civilized" thing to do. Well, if we adopted that attitude long ago, there would be no America and the world would be a much worse place for it. Okay. That's my comment on the healthcare response in my country. And as always, I'm right.
2 people like this
@jb78000 (15173)
8 Apr 10
you are never right fishy. your wonder countrty is not the best in the world, in fact it is rather horrible.
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Apr 10
Depends on how one defines "best." America bashers can pick and choose unflattering aspects of America based on their hypocritical ideals of rights and wrongs and their land's own shortcomings. Ah salute. Have at it. I've noticed a trend in most America bashing: the basher usually feigns infallibility in their thinking, as if they're part of the enlightened few where sunshine gently kisses roses and frowns are always upside down. Flaw one. But, hey, I'm just glad you're able to speak here to me in English instead of a Japanese/German hybrid. And thanks be to Biggie for your being able to sit down without soreness from constant buttfiddlin' at the member of a Hitler spawn. And you're all welcome for not being blown up after refusing to convert.
2 people like this
@mentalward (14695)
• United States
8 Apr 10
Matersfish, YOU need to run for office!
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
8 Apr 10
I imagine that in many Europen nations, it was not considered such a big deal as governmentws their seem to be more typicly oriented towards huge social programs and engineering. I do know that in Canada it was hugely controvertial. In the U.S. however.....it may go down in history as the tipping point for our second civil war. Yes, this is a prediction I am making (mark it well). I do not say this out of hyperbole or fear mongering, it is simply the natural course and conclusion based on a number of actions so far and the structure of our system of governence. It is inevitable.
1 person likes this
@jb78000 (15173)
19 Apr 10
half the governments here are pretty conservative. i think you might be over generalising. anyway it will be very sad if a civil war starts in your country simply because of how healthcare is provided. can't those who don't like it just go and get private insurance anyway?
• Philippines
8 Apr 10
i don't know. we don't even have that, probably similar to US. we don't have a Government controlled health care because the Government itself is corruption - and it's became part of the system. that's a lot to debate when it comes to reforms, but i can you, it won't be easy, more protest,debates here and there. don't be surprise if there is a heckler in those places
1 person likes this
@jb78000 (15173)
19 Apr 10
it is not directly controlled by the government.
@pandaeyes (2068)
8 Apr 10
I think here in Britain it was seen as a miracle. Previously if people were ill,they often had to put up with it because they couldn't afford to pay for the doctor and if they did,they couldn't afford ongoing treatments. It is paid for through the national insurance tax of course which some probably resented but I don't think anyone complains about it these days because nobody here ever must wait while their 'insurances' are checked before they are treated at an accident and everyone is covered for things like maternity costs.
@jb78000 (15173)
8 Apr 10
and that sounds like living hundreds of years ago but it was introduced in living history wasn't it? [don't expect rabbits to have good general knowledge]. i don't think anybody complains about having an nhs because nearly everybody uses it. i know some people who have gone private for certain things to cut waiting time but since they still go to nhs doctors for everything else i suspect they might be rather upset if we lost it altogether.
1 person likes this
@pandaeyes (2068)
8 Apr 10
I think everyone in the country has benefited from it at one time or another. Even inoculations given at school for example. I really don't like the idea of less important treatments being available on it . I'm not going to say which ones as I don't want to offend anyone but some things seem extravagant and not something the ordinary person would choose to donate towards.
@jb78000 (15173)
8 Apr 10
i am happy to offend people however, rabbits get hunted anyway, i suspect you are talking about plastic surgery. this should be on the nhs for burns victims etc but not for people neurotic about a big nose or something. get a loan and pay for it privately.
@dawnald (84146)
• Shingle Springs, California
8 Apr 10
Fury and panic about how the US will suddenly turn into the USSR. Sigh...
@jb78000 (15173)
19 Apr 10
has it?
1 person likes this
@dawnald (84146)
• Shingle Springs, California
19 Apr 10
I think it's leaning more toward Nazi Germany, actually... How've you been?
@jb78000 (15173)
19 Apr 10
the states is never going to go commie. fascism slightly more likely. [yes i know the two have lots in common even though they are supposed to be opposite]. been busy, and going to be even busier these next few days. one exam. one tutorial. other stuff, all in a few days.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19782)
• United States
8 Apr 10
Theres a loaded question! I believe that debating the issue with America in comparison with any other country is difficult. America is a country built on getting away from big government, getting away from nannyism, and taking charge of your own life. well 234 years later, people forget, parents give their kids everything, then they believe they deserve everything handed to them. There are still some people that would like to be responsible for themselves. That would like to pursue their dreams, their freedom. This does not include Big Brother "taking care" of everything! This is why we feel so strongly about this.
@jb78000 (15173)
19 Apr 10
you have a balance between freedom and responsibility when you live in a society. last i checked you had the following, none paid for privately (except through taxes): a police force an army fire services roads water and sewage emergency healthcare a government local government disaster relief food stamps what difference does one more make?
1 person likes this
@jb78000 (15173)
19 Apr 10
oh and i missed out schools, the justice system, and erm prisons. sure there's plenty more big brother stuff like that.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16686)
• Boston, Massachusetts
19 Apr 10
Of the items on your list only a couple are administrated by the Federal government and only two are supposed to be administered by the Federal government. The army, certainly, as the government is supposed to provide for the defense of the nation per the Constitution and disaster relief could be considered to be in the realm of the central government. The cure for Big Brother IS local government and everything else on your list belongs under the auspices of local government. The more local the government, the smaller it is and the closer to the will of the people in its administration of its duties. The further you get - for instance you could get 3000 miles away from the central government - the less likely it is that your will is going to be of much importance. A long time ago we fought a war with a government about 3000 miles away for that reason - lack of effective representation.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16686)
• Boston, Massachusetts
8 Apr 10
There are huge differences in the way the NHS was received way back in 1948 and the health care reform undertaken here in 2010 in the US. The first big difference, of course, is that this bill does not establish a national health care service. There's no public option. But more and very important differences abound. For one thing, very few people had any health insurance in the UK prior to the NHS. Some workers had some health coverage but their wives and children didn't. The majority of health care had to be paid for privately. Here, in the US in 2010, the majority of citizens already have health insurance, whether it's through self-insurance, employers or Medicaid/Medicare. If you take even the highest estimate of 47 million uninsured that means about 250 million ARE insured. It's much easier to convince the majority to accept something they want but don't yet have than it is to convince them to give up something they have already and want to keep in favor of something the government wants them to have. Fury and panic? Well, if you like. We see it as a matter of rights. This is just one of the many reasons that people from other countries with other systems can't really have a frame of reference on the US health care system or solutions. They aren't the same. The problems are not the same and the solutions therefore, cannot be the same.
@jb78000 (15173)
19 Apr 10
i know it is not the same situation rollo. however is anybody actually being forced to give up private insurance? why not keep it, ok they will still have to pay the tax for the new system but surely it is not a case of this is your ONLY option.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16686)
• Boston, Massachusetts
19 Apr 10
"is anybody actually being forced to give up private insurance?" The simple answer is "yes" for a couple of reasons. First, all health insurance companies will have to craft policies that are in order with the guidelines set by the Health Insurance Exchange Commission. If they don't fly, you can't buy. So, if your current policy is not in step with the Exchange, you cannot renew it. Your insurance company won't be able to sell it to you. Secondly, if you have a policy that is too good, too far above the guidelines, you will face a heavy penalty in taxes for having health insurance that the government thinks is more than you should have. Think about it, you can't have really good insurance, even if you pay for it, because....? Because the government wants to improve your health care? By preventing you or punishing you for having better health insurance than they mandate? Surely, those with no health insurance who don't go without by choice, will be grateful for federal subsidies, etc, but those who are used to making their own choices shouldn't be penalized for making those choices. Penalties for having 'better than the norm' insurance don't improve health care for all, but they just might lower the quality of health care some individuals might have by making it prohibitively expensive for them to continue to enjoy that quality of health care they have now.
@jb78000 (15173)
20 Apr 10
sounds dodgy. here at least you can get any private insurance you want (biggest company is bupa), obviously you'll still be paying taxes which support, among everything else, the nhs, but nothing to stop you getting extra if you want. just an idea but the whole idea of making this national healthcare based on insurance sounds not beautifully thought out.
@cynthiann (18619)
• Jamaica
8 Apr 10
The response in the U.K. was one of gratitude and relief. This was in perhaps 1944. Of course many people went overboard and would go to the doctor to bandage a little cut etc but it did settle down. I was born post war but my mother told me that when pregnant with my sister the money did not come from the army (my Dad was fighting in the war) and she begged the doctor to see her without payment and would pay him when her money came and was refused by every doctor she went to. she was terrified that she would go into labour early without the money to pay. It was initially rejected by the so called upper class but there was nothing against it like I have seen happening in the USA. I grew up feeling proud of our country that all its citizens could get the same goo health care. Here in Jamaica, there is supposed to be free health care but it is a joke. The reality is that you will die if you do not have money. Blessings
@jb78000 (15173)
19 Apr 10
ok that sounds dreadful