Spring RTS Engine

The difference is naive intent, as I am certain you are aware. However, at this point, the line is at best faded.

Then I wasn't trolling. I say what I mean, mean what I say. I have nothing against Americans, other than how they manage power and responsibility at the government/corporate level. They're not the only country with these issues either, however their abuses of power are better understood, globally speaking.

I'd just like more powerful Americans to look at consequences. Denying the poor healthcare leads to higher crime. Only sycophants, radicals or cowards would put the financial health of a state above the physical health of their family. You put healthcare out of the reach of the poor then do you simply expect them to suffer and die in silence... or is it more likely they'll turn to crime to pay the bills?

Universal healthcare simply recognises a minimum level of health as a universal right for all American citizens. Privatised healthcare recognises good health as something you buy, if you can afford it. If you don't like the concept of paying for other peoples health then at least recognise the following truths:

* Wealth is not always earned. It can be inherited or achieved through crime or simple luck. Poverty can be achieved via the same routes, with no fault on the people involved (layoffs, trade embargoes, accidents, effects of crime, stock fluctuations, etc).
* Unhealthy people drain an economy whether you pay their medical bills or not. They pull wealthfare payments, they require disabled access to public resources, and they may steal to pay for treatments. If you catch them stealing they clog the courts and prison system. You can't "fight" poverty by fighting the poor.
* A government generally has better purchasing power than any individual or organisation. A government can provide cheaper treatments through bulk-buying, provided it is carefully monitored for collusion and bribes.

Universal healthcare recognises these truths, privatised health is the modern equivalent of "let them eat cake".

In the UK the NHS does a decent job, and when ti fails it is normally due to the negligence of people, rather than the NHS itself, or because the government didn't fund the NHS well enough and again human negligence lead to the misdirection of funds.

The NHS as a public service works. Its flaws are the result of the following 2 main problems:

• Human negligence (this will happen in any health service, commercial or public
• Underfunding (this is a political issue, one that has a high incentive to fix as it sways voters))

The NHS cannot outperform rivals such as Bupa because as rich as the government is in comparison, that wealth has to go elsewhere to things such as subsidizing transport, defence, benefits, regulators, running prisons, police, etc etc

This acts as a counter balance to the incentiv eto spend, negating the vast majority of arguements in the US against public healthcare.

No the government wont make commercial operations crash into the ground, not without taxing you, and they will never do that because that would lose them an election, so they try to fiddle other ways of diverting resources from cash cows that serve no public interest, or.. just not spending more on the health service.

We have instances here when the NHS cannot cope that commercial operations are contracted to take on the extra demand.

Also commercial operations tout their improved resources, for example, if you go to a Bupa hospital, a lot of the staff spend their workday in an NHS hospital then switch over for the extra money. In a Bupa hospital you get nicer furnishings and cups of teas etc, its essentially the same healthcare but with a polish over the top and faster turn arounds.

If the NHS did not exist, we wouldn't have lower taxes, the government would just spend it on something else. Besides according to the statistics, a public health service would cost you less than the current system, it might force the US health insurance industry to put quality of service ahead of share dividends and profit margins.

heck I know US nurses on msn who've told me about financial worries regarding medical expenses..

I never said you were trolling, I was referring to America74. I would have thought that obvious.

neddiedrow wrote:Troll posting in a thoughtful thread posted with trolling subtext which has long since become a trolling thread pretending to thoughtful supertext.

That's very generous of you. Thank you.