Anglosphere

I DO so hope that most Americans will ignore the vile public advertising campaign recently organised by Sarah Palin and the far right extremist Republican Party of America in which the British National Health Service was subjected to a whole tirade of abuse and misrepresentation based on a complete pack of lies for the most part, and half truths for the rest.

Very little indeed of this mean and grossly distorted assault on the UK's "free at the point of issue" healthcare system came anywhere near most of the actual facts, a system which very, very few, if any, British people would even think of exchanging for a healthcarse system currently existing in the United States of America. For Brits who have moved to the US on a permanent basis find that the private insurance based Heathcare system over there presents them with far more headaches and anxiety than practically any other aspect of American life.

This onslaught on the British NHS has caused a great deal of indignation and utter disbelief over here mostly because of it's astonishing inaccurancies and obvious and very blatant manipulation of facts, and even more incredulous was the way the British people appearing in the advertisement were intentionally hoodwinked into thinking they were taking part in a different discussion altogether on a completely different issue concerning our two respective Healthcare systems.

Some of those British people who regrettably appeared in this ad were so shocked when they saw the end result on screen, as shown all over America recently, that they appeared on various phone-in shows in the UK today to express their anger and dismay, and feel so strongly about it that the US Republican Party may well find lawsuits heading their way from thjis side of the ocean.

They even had to the gall to completely falsify the truths about Dr Stephen Hawking, the brilliant but severely disabled physicist of Cambridge University, England,saying that he surely would have died "had he relied on the British NHS"!

Well, he did rely on the British NHS throughout, and because of this he survived, and so have millions of other people in the UK in a similar position who, had they been faced with the American system, would either have been totally bankrupted or had simply died before they got to that stage.

It was a deliberate attempt to denigrate the British NHS using all these means, and it's unbelievable that a major political party in America could even attempt to feed such nonsensical rubbish to the American public at large in this way. Quite incredible. Turn off your tellies, guys, and read a book instead - or go down the pub....oh, no....you'd better not do that over there!

What a shame. Anyway, isn't this Palin woman well known for opening her gob on issues without adequating conducting prior research and thus presenting the actual truth and not complete verbal garbage? MY God, we have weird politicos over here right enough, but all this takes the digestive big time!

Check the British Expats in the USA website to read the reaction to all this from the Brits now living over there.....it doesn't contain many pleasant comments, let me warn you. Again, quite sad really....and a pity.

guess what you fucking wanker WE ARE AMERICANS and we don't need the government to give us health care. WE DO IT OURSELVES BECAUSE WE ARE AMERICANS NOT HELPLESS BABIES LIKE THE BRITISH. DOWN WITH OBAMA!

It bugs the SHIT out of me that you rotten-tooth British pieces of shit feel the need to comment on America all the time. WE WERE FUCKING FOUNDED ON KICKING YOUR ASSES THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. America is finally waking up and rejecting Obama and his plans to create a communist dictatorship where the government rules every aspect of our lives. We are independent and proud.

"British people appearing in the advertisement were intentionally hoodwinked into thinking they were taking part in a different discussion altogether on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE concerning our two respective Healthcare systems. "

Damian, what was the other issue?

By the way, I believe every word of your post. The people who are behind the anti-NHS efforts are good—very good, indeed—at the fine art of brainwashing.

Proud American, with all due respect, your posts seem to reflect the maturity level of a twelve-year-old.

<<WE WERE FUCKING FOUNDED ON KICKING YOUR ASSES THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.>>


Haha, so true!
How can the Brits argue with this!?

The original [url=http://www.hijordans.com]Air Jordan shoes[/url] was released in February 1990, again designed by Hatfield. Some elements were the same from the Air Jordan shoes, but the Air Jordan 's most distinctive feature is arguably its reflective tongue. There was also another innovation: clear rubber soles. The soles gave the shoe a whole new and unique look, but it yellowed over time when exposed to moisture. To combat this problem, collectors stored the shoes in a cool, dry place with a desiccant at the soles, most commonly silica packs
The Jordan shoes also featured a base top with lace locks, making strapping on the shoe easy. The lacelock feature partly inspired the Air Jordan Spiz'ike. The Air Jordan model is considered to have the best structure and design to wear during basketball games and sold the most pairs of shoes from the Air Jordan line.many people [url=http://www.hijordans.com]buy jordan shoes[/url].
Hatfield is believed to have drawn inspiration for the Air Jordan shoes from the World War II Mustang fighter plane; which is most notably visible in the shark teeth shapes on the midsole. The Air Jordan V was retroed in 2000 to great demand, including a new colorway featuring Michael Jordan's high school (Laney High) colors. In 2006 several re-retro V's had released including the very popular LS "Grape" V's, the LS "burgundy" V's, the popular "Fire-Red" V's, the "Green Bean" V's, and "Stealth Blue" V's. Along with the latter, a very limited laser design and the black/metallic/fire red colorways were released in early 2007.
In the month of May 2009, Air [url=http://www.hijordans.com]Jordan shoes[/url] confirmed the release of an "DMP II" consisting of two Air Jordan V's. In March, there has been recent picture leaks of this product, which is also referred as "The Raging Bull" Package. The most of the leaked pictures are of the first Jordan V color way which consist of a composition of buttery varsity red suede on the upper. Paired alongside the eye-catching color is black on the midsole, lace area, tongue and a crystal-clean sole and the classic 3M material. [url=http://www.hijordans.com]www.hijordans.com[/url]

I think when it comes to health care, as with most hot button issues, you are either firmly on one side or firmly on the other, and you will hear only what you want to hear, i.e. whatever reinforces what you were already thinking. Palin was no doubt preaching to her choir, and her message simply corroborated their existing beliefs. I doubt it swayed anybody on the opposing side, nor was it meant to. Politicians rarely aim for the middle; they concentrate on their cores.

I also think that ultimately people's allegiances have less to do with the particular issue at hand than with where that issue fits into their particular paradigm. And how much it will affect them personally. As I mentioned in another post, hatred of anything that smacks of socialism or big government can be traced back to conflicts in American society that have little to do with health care at all -- it's just the latest casualty.

"Hmm. What am I? My friends say I'm conservative...but I'm not like, say, a Republican. While I oppose many things that liberals believe in, I am very pacifistic. I don't like some of the things that businesses are doing to the environment, but I don't like governments meddling in other aspects of business--and anti-trust stuff. However, I dislike software patents, and draconian copyright laws. I also strongly oppose things like capital punishment. So what am I? Liberal or Conservative? (I always think of myself as just being Sensible.) "

You're a quasi-centrist pseudo-liberal moderate conservative.

I recognize that I'm rather late to this discussion, but I thought I'd add my two cents to the preceding two issues. Those issues are, of course, gun rights and socialized medicine as they relate to the United States of America. As anyone reading this has no doubt already gathered based on my spelling, I am American. Please keep in mind that the following commentary is designed to be more provocative than conclusive. I will merely try to highlight some points I rarely hear made regarding these issues, especially in foreign media.


The first issue is gun rights. Perhaps it would be more accurate to label it as gun rights and their relation to crime. The casual observer tends to note a high rate of violent crime in America, as well as a high rate of gun ownership, and concludes, based upon reasonable inference, that the two must correlate. More guns in the hands of the public naturally means that more violent crime is inevitable, right? Not necessarily. Swiss law requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep and maintain fully-automatic rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their home. Yet Switzerland has a lower murder rate than Great Britain, France, Belgium, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, and Finland. On the other hand, Taiwan completely bans the ownership of private firearms, and has a higher murder rate than the United States.

Another thing to consider is whether a ban on firearms is enforceable. Prohibition certainly didn't work for alcohol, nor is it working for drugs. Legal guns owners in the United States are required to register their guns and must submit to a background check. It's reasonable to assume that confiscating legally-owned guns is possible, but what about unregistered weapons? Would a ban on guns really deter someone who already owns their gun illegally? The logical result would seem to be that only those already determined to break the law would have guns. Does the prospect of facing a charge for possessing a weapon weigh on the mind of someone contemplating robbery or murder?

And there's the Second Amendment. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure citizens the means to revolt should the government resort to tyranny. That notion may seem antiquated, but it is often noted that Hitler sought to tightly control gun ownership (although not completely ban it, as some hyperbole suggests). More importantly, the "right to bear arms" is in the Bill of Rights. Amending the Bill of Rights would set a terrible precedent. Modifying any of the original ten amendments would mean that no individual rights were sacred. Furthermore, the Second Amendment is already the only right which has been restricted, as opposed to expanded, with time. Freedom of speech as been extended to include almost all forms of expression, but the right to bear arms is granted only to government-approved citizens (e.g., no felons), and only for certain types of weapons (fully-automatic weapons are illegal, for example).

<<and only for certain types of weapons (fully-automatic weapons are illegal, for example). >>


Really? I'm curious about this. Why then all the Youtube videos of people with their own personal mounted machine guns, sniper rifles and artillery?

>>And there's the Second Amendment. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure citizens the means to revolt should the government resort to tyranny. That notion may seem antiquated, but it is often noted that Hitler sought to tightly control gun ownership (although not completely ban it, as some hyperbole suggests). More importantly, the "right to bear arms" is in the Bill of Rights. Amending the Bill of Rights would set a terrible precedent. Modifying any of the original ten amendments would mean that no individual rights were sacred. Furthermore, the Second Amendment is already the only right which has been restricted, as opposed to expanded, with time. Freedom of speech as been extended to include almost all forms of expression, but the right to bear arms is granted only to government-approved citizens (e.g., no felons), and only for certain types of weapons (fully-automatic weapons are illegal, for example).<<

The thing I find contradictory about such interpretations of the Second Amendment is that if the whole militia thing was taken seriously, then people should be permitted if not expected to be able to field *military* arms, that is, in a modern context, ranging on the low end from carbines with semiautomatic fire to things such as artillery and armor. Handguns, shotguns, and semiautomatic rifles designed for hunting as opposed to combat are certainly not general-purpose military weapons that one would expect of an actual militia in a modern context (with, in particular, handguns being primary useful as an emergency backup weapon and for executions, shotguns only being useful for indoor urban combat and trench warfare). Were such taken seriously, it might actually make more sense to ban handguns than automatic rifles, as handguns are not really very militarily useful whereas automatic rifles clearly have actual military applications.

The second issue is socialized medicine. American citizens are not guaranteed health coverage until they reach the age of 65 (they are then covered by Medicare). Most rely on private insurance companies to help pay for medical costs. If they do not have any medical insurance, then they are personally responsible for any and all cost resulting from medical treatment. Because people often receive insurance as part of an employment package, the loss of one's job can often mean the loss of health care coverage. Thus, a bad situation can be made even worse. Furthermore, health insurance companies almost always charge deductibles and copayments in addition to monthly premiums, meaning that health care may still cost a lot even for the insured. And I haven't even mentioned all the technicalities and fine print insurance companies will cite in an effort to avoid paying for especially costly procedures.

So what should be done? Nothing? Is a public option (i.e., government-funded insurance alternative) the answer? How about a single-payer system (like Britain's National Health Service)? What American's are trying to figure out now is what is the most cost effective way to ensure that everyone gets the treatment they need without facing financial ruin. Most of the industrialized world uses a single-payer system, but even with his party in power, President Obama could never get approval for such overtly socialized medicine. Why not? Are there any benefits to "capitalized" medicine? Well, in a word, yes.

Like other industries based on capitalism, there are clear winners and losers in American medicine. American physicians make more on average than doctors anywhere else in the world. Their monthly pay is almost twice that of British physicians (the highest-paid in Europe), and that's taking inflation into account. This high pay ensures that the brightest minds are enticed by medicine as a lucrative career. Without a cap on costs, American pharmaceutical companies make billions in profit. 12 of the 20 largest pharmaceutical and biotech companies by revenue are American. Much of that profit goes into research and development (the estimated cost of discovering, developing, and launching a new drug is $1.7 billion). The result has been that the United States has led Europe in drug productivity for years. More capital has meant more innovation, better technology, more options, and overall better treatment for the individual patient in the American system than in single-payer systems. That is, of course, if they seek treatment.

Even though the vast majority of Americans do have some form of health insurance, each and every visit to a doctor or hospital will cost them. As such, most Americans wait to see a doctor until they are clearly sick, and never get preventative care. It's been said that it's better to have a heart attack in America, but it's more likely to be prevented in France. The real issue for Americans is how to ensure that their medical procedures and technologies are still cutting edge, while making sure that everyone has access to it... or at least that it won't cost them their house.

<<Really? I'm curious about this. Why then all the Youtube videos of people with their own personal mounted machine guns, sniper rifles and artillery?>>

I haven't seen the videos you're referring to, but they're likely one of three things:

1) Illegal automatic weapons.

OR

2) Originally automatic weapons which have been made semi-automatic for civilian use.

OR

3) Purchased before the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

<<Were such taken seriously, it might actually make more sense to ban handguns than automatic rifles, as handguns are not really very militarily useful whereas automatic rifles clearly have actual military applications.>>

Good point. The reason Swiss law mandates gun ownership is expressly for the purpose of a militia.

I think not, Travis. In the event of a situation that called for a militia, i.e. on home turf, there would be plenty of call for regular weaponry. You wouldn't be doing military style maneuvers requiring tanks and RPGs in a militia. You would be doing guerrilla and house-to-house stuff. Hey, that stuff works wonders in lots of wars all over the world -- check out the evening news.

And I think it only takes a small kit to convert semiautomatic weapons to full auto anyway.

But it's not just that we have the second amendment and that it's sacred as part of the Bill of Rights -- there's a whole practical side to the matter. There are enough guns in the US to arm every adult and some of the kids. That's right -- hundreds of millions. They are almost as common as vacuum cleaners. Where I live, everyone has them. My 21-year-old assistant has her own rifle. One of the nurses I work with is taking extra shifts because she just blew all of her savings on a pickup truck and a shotgun. I bet I could ask all of my neighbors if they had any guns in their house and at least half of them would say yes. I don't own one because I'm a horrible shot and I have lots of dogs, but I'm surprised my roommate doesn't have one. (Hell, maybe he does.) You could ban them all tomorrow, and how long would it take to whittle that down? Five or six hundred years? It just ain't happening, no matter how you feel about it. Sensible regulation is the smart solution.

And Dude is right -- even though the US is heavily armed, that doesn't mean your average person lives in fear every day. Far from it. I'm sure non-Americans won't take our word for it, so take the word of one of your own -- the BBC's Justin Webb, now returning to the UK after a number of years in the US:

"Now back in the UK I find myself utterly at sea - I say hello to people I pass in the street. They lunge on, muttering insults. We'll get used to it. But we will never forget the kindness of America. In Swindon buying a car the other day (yes, life has changed) the conversation turned to a familiar theme but one that endlessly fascinates me - the relative peaceableness of the American life, guns and all. Too many Brits seriously think that America is violent. It isn't. Most America lives are free of violence and the threat of it in a way no life in Swindon can be. Why that's true is a subject all of its own (religion, gun ownership, moral fibre, space, social cohesiveness?) and one worthy of a future study."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/08/time_to_say_goodbye.html