Chris Dodd is all for ObamaCare. Is he willing to set the example and go to Britain for treatment of his prostate cancer? Sure the survival rate there is only 75% compared to our 100%, but maybe Chris is up to the gamble. Who knows, maybe he'll find a "Friends Of Angelo" type doctor over there who will see him sooner, rather than later.

Nancy "Toussaud" Pelosi will soon have her
"own" private jet to react to national
sentiment at a moment's notice. Is this
a great country, or what?

Interesting fellow. Why do we have NO
DAMNED REPUBLICANS to match this passion,
this rhetoric and the guts to tell the
country what this Englishman can? Obama
can trip over himself every day, and still
win the day, because THERE ISN'T A VOICE
on the right to point out the obvious.
Chuckie Grassley, Snowe, Collins, and
even McConnell are pathetic opposition
to the Obama-MSM machine. I'm feeling
they don't plan to oppose....just hope
to get a "good bone" from the media once
or twice a decade. Ditto, McCain.

Here's the deal. The next President of the United States without a valid US birth certificate can be Mr. Hannan. What do you say?

As a geezer in training, this is pretty chillng stuff.

Obama mumbles about "revenue neutral" and "hundreds of billions in savings", and yet nationalized healthcare is the single biggest item of Britain's budget. At 1.4 million employees, the British National Health Service is the third largest employer in the world, after the Red Army, and the Indian National Railways. Britain's problems are echoed in Canada as well.

It's said that optimism is the triumph of Hope (tm) over experience. Bullshit. It's nothing less than the takeover of our healthcare system by force.

Where are all the Obama defenders calling his guy out for being a liar?

Perhaps he should be reported to the White House for his spreading of deception.

Very interesting. Maybe Obama and his groupies need to be forced to watch this video. They obviously don't care about anyone but themselves. Same old, Same old. They are selling us out and are turning our great country into a socialistic country. Hello N. Korea, here we come. Obama wants to emulate your country.

Where are all the Obama defenders calling his guy out for being a liar?

They're busy photoshopping some pictures to show him torturing babies and participating in shameful sexual activity.

Bobdog -

The UK's population is about 61 million.

The US population is about 350 million.

With 1.4 mil for 61 million, you're looking at about 8 million people needed for Obamacare, who will be dependent on the system for their jobs.

That's one hell of a voting block.

JLawson Holy Cow - I never thought of that. How would you like to run for public office? You have common sense - OK I know you would never last - the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, etc would run you out of town in a heartbeat for being compassionate, sensible, moral, etc.

Yes, Neil Hannan is so knowledgeable about NHS that he doesn't know it began in 1948, not 1944; in peacetime, not wartime.

If he can't get that basic fact right, and actually makes a big deal about a "fact" that is not a fact at all, why should he be taken seriously about the other (mis)information he offers?

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that the British people are pretty happy with NHS, and DO NOT WANT healthcare re-privatized.

BH... nice try but in the end an epic fail.

The National Health Service Act of 1946 came into effect on 5 July 1948.

So no, Hannan is correct and your being disingenous, or much worse as usual.

And note, before you try it, you better be prepared to prove the NHSA magically came into being in 1946 WITHOUT any planning, discussions or debate during the late war years.

P.S. 28 Mar 2009 ... The majority of British voters want an independent inquiry into the supervision of NHS hospitals.

Does that sound like they are happy?

Nitwit.

Ah, the charming hairsplitter, Marc. So lovely to chat with you.

1946 was still peacetime. And I'm sure there was planning and discussion for National Health Care in the UK in the war years, and indeed well before, just as there has been here ever since breakaway Republican Teddy Roosevelt proposed it during his Bull Moose campaign of 19freaking12.

Still doesn't detract from my point about Hannan saying it started as a wartime program -- it didn't. So who's being disingenuous?

BTW, I'm glad to see I've been promoted to "nitwit." Thought I would always remain a lowly "asswipe," Mr Articulate Eighth Grader Marc.

Also, BTW, I realize I mistakenly called him "Neil" and not "David." Also that I probably should have called his appearance (mis?)information, not (mis)information.

Oh, and HSM? I don't have any links to polls to support my contention that the British are happy with NHS. Do you have any to demonstrate they're not? I'll wait.

Well gee nitwit. Oops sorry asswipe, I gave you one poll will two suffice?

"Nearly two thirds of those surveyed said they reckoned the NHS was "in somewhat failing health" or "very poorly indeed". A tiny proportion said they think the NHS is "in peak condition", only 33% said it is "in reasonably good health", and only 13% reckoned it is "getting better".

Or will it take three.

"Nearly 60 per cent of high street dentists will either reduce their NHS commitment or quit the NHS altogether, according to new research from the British Dental Association (BDA)."

There's a butt load more, but you're not even interested in looking apparently otherwise you wouldn't have posted your tripe in the first instance.

And yes, '46 was "peacetime" but I see you subscribe to the theory it magically appeared on the British scene as if conjured up by the Mindfreak guy.

Pity to be you.

And BTW, you've been upgraded from asswipe to being a USDA Grade A Prime Choice Asshole.

Congratulations.

P.S. You'd be advised to review the video. Hannan didn't say NHS started in '44, he said wartime thinking i.e. in 1944 led to the NHS being established.

Congrats again USDA Grade A Prime Choice Asshole.

Gee, Mr Namecaller Marc, you really slapped me down with your first two cites!

One cites a study calling for a "review" of the administration of the plan. Real pitchforks and howling mobs, there.

The second, from a poll conducted by a Murdoch owned organization, says "4 out of 10" people would like to see privatization. If my math is correct, that means that SIX OUT OF TEN WOULD NOT.

Laughably, it says that "nearly two thirds" say it is in failing health or very poorly indeed. But 33% say it is "reasonably good health" and 13% say it's "getting better." Let's see....does a combined 46% leave room for "almost two thirds?" No? Whaaat???

And the fact that no more than 20% say it is a failure, after 60 years of its existence, is more proof of my point than yours. Can you read at all? I mean, past the headline?

The poll of dentists would have a little more credibility, and I was ready to concede a point there, until I realized it was 5 years old. I don't know, and I'll wager you don't either, how many dentists actually followed through on their threats. Maybe they did, but I bet I would have heard of it by now if that was the case.

Oh, and the namecalling thing. That never gets old!

I really like the way most of your pet names have to do with asses, assholes, asswiping, etc. It's almost as if you had some unresolved toilet-training issues.

But, no, probably not.

Correction: The poll Senor Hairsplitter cites was not done by a "Murdoch-owned organization." It was done by Gallup for the Telegraph, a Murdoch-owned tabloid.

Hmmm, you readily admit to not having "any links to polls to support my [your] contention that the British are happy with NHS" but you're so quick to dismiss anything that may depict the opposite.

Need I remind you, you asked if I had any "to demonstrate they're not?" Correct me if wrong but I fail to see any percentages being required in that question.

Funny, I bet you were ALL OVER Bush poll numbers when below percent as indicative of anything but now, ow percent of brits think their system is the bollocks well, no so much importance is assigned to the number.

Funny, and sad that.

BTW I guess you missed the 28 Mar 2009 link that said among many other things:

"It can also be revealed that Stafford Hospital is unable to give stroke patients and pregnant women vital scans over the week-end because of a shortage of qualified staff."

Patients presenting with a stroke on a Friday evening have had to wait 48 hours for a scan, thereby reducing their chance of a full recovery. Women suspected of suffering from potentially life-threatening ectopic pregnancies face similar delays.

In addition to ..."Geoff Martin, head of campaigns at the Health Emergency pressure group, said: "NHS Trusts are run as managerial fiefdoms, immune from public scrutiny and accountability, and the end result is that hundreds of people are losing their lives for no reason."

Yep great system there.

BTW, did you review the included video? And if so why not correct your obvious misunderstanding, to put it kindly, of what he actually said.

Hairsplittin' and subject-changin' at it's finest, on display by Namecallin' Marc.

Since what you cited DIDN'T "depict the opposite", but instead supported MY point rather than yours, no dismissal was necessary. Your very own poll said that 60% of the British people polled did NOT support going private. AND that only 20% regarded NHS as a failure.

I asked for polls to support your contention that the British people did not support NHS. You provided a poll to support the opposite contention. And then gloated, as if you had really shown me! Seriously, did you not read past the headline, or did you expect that I wouldn't?

As to the Stafford hospital stuff, my argument was about polls, not anecdotes. Moving the goalposts won't work this time.

Family life calls, so google up a storm, Namecaller. I'll check in tomorrow afternoon. Going to the beach early AM. This time, try to find something that actually proves YOUR point. Take all the time you need.

Bruce -

You might also recall that it took many years for the UK to recover from the war - to the point where they finally ended food rationing in 1954. Labour took over in 1945, and started nationalizing industries, and in 1948 they nationalized health care.

By the way, they're still charging you a licensing fee for owning a TV set in the UK. £139.50 per year - such a bargain! (Whoops, it went up to £142.50 this year.)

That's exclusive of any cable TV service you might have, too...but on the good side, it's a site license, not a per-item fee.

I realize the TV stuff doesn't have much impact on health care - but it's an interesting side item. "Free health care" isn't ever free - the money's ALWAYS got to come from somewhere. We take 'free' broadcast TV for granted here in the US, but we pay for it through commercial loading of programs.

Of the two systems, I prefer the latter. It's less intrusive. Of course, we've got shitloads of fees and taxes attached to cable services - but no outright tax on simple ownership of the item.

BTW, percentages are kinda the POINT of polls, Marc.

Bruce, you asked

I don't have any links to polls to support my contention that the British are happy with NHS. Do you have any to demonstrate they're not?

The poll provided shows that 2/3 of the Brits think their system is in failing health or very poorly indeed, 1/5 say it has failed, and 2/5 say that it's getting worse. That's a poll which demonstrates that they are not happy with NHS. You can't complain when the question you have asked gets answered. Well, I guess you can, because you did, but it only makes you look silly.

Figures don't lie but liars do figure!
Love the glass is half empty approach, "only 43% of those in the healthcare system think it's excellent".When have we ever seen figures like that in just about anything run by the gov't in this county?

iwogisdead - "That's a poll which demonstrates that they are not happy with NHS. You can't complain when the question you have asked gets answered. Well, I guess you can, because you did, but it only makes you look silly."

Guess BH failed to see that huh iwogisdead?

Actually no he saw it, just avoids mentioning it. It's the same strategy used when asked to correct his complete and utter misunderstanding of what Hannan stated in the video.

He hasn't corrected himself, and never will.

But I feel sure of one thing, I doubt this is not the only conservative blog he visits and has posted the same lie about Hannan's words elsewhere and feels very proud of his idiotic self for doing so.

You show me a poll that says that "4 out of 10 would go private if they could." Does that mean, or does it not, that six out of ten WOULD NOT?

The quote from the article says that "NEARLY two thirds" say it is in failing health. But if 33% say it's in "reasonably good health" and another 13% say it's "getting better", how does that figure? Where I come from, 54% is NOT "nearly two thirds." Is it on Planet Wingnut?

Now, it's true that 20% of those polled say the NHS has failed. I'll bet you can get 20% to say anything. Lots of Americans say that Medicare and Social Security are failures. Doesn't mean they want Grampa moving in with them, and bringing his medical bills!

What I find hilarious about Hairsplitter Marc and his pathetic allies here is this: Here it is, 24 hours later, and none of you have shown me a poll that says a majority of British people want to abolish the NHS, or even that they want major change. Saying that 54% think it is "in failing health" -- what does that even mean? Instead you want to insist that the poll means what Marc wants it to mean,( and what the headline says), even though it clearly does not! What's wrong with you guys?
Tell you what, Marc and Company: Let's see a poll that says that a majority of British want to abolish or privatize their healthcare system. Or Canadians, or French, or Swedes or Belgians or Dutch or freaking Slovenians, for chrissake. But please, have some dignity. Don't keep insisting that up is down, black is white, and 40% is a majority.

Oh, and I get it about Hannan not actually saying the program started in 1944. But he does express disbelief that the US is considering implementing a similar program "in peacetime", so what impression do you think he's trying to convey?

I realize subtlety is not your strong suit, and that you're easily manipulated, but I think his intent is clear. He wants us to think that the NHS started as a wartime program, when it clearly did not.

And besides, since when did peace break out? I was under the impression that this WAS wartime? What's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, "unpleasantness?"

One more point, and I'll let you return to thinking up very clever ass-related insults to call people, Marc:

What you "feel very sure of" is yet another thing you "know" that isn't so. While I do visit other conservative blogs occasionally, this is the only one I ever recall commenting on. But I've grown to like it here -- some of you are so easy!

Mr iwogisdead:

If you took a poll of Americans in 1978 and asked them about the US military, how many do you think would have said the military "was in failing health?" Would you assume that those people wanted to abolish the military? Of course not!

Saying a program is ailing doesn't mean you want to end it. Some (many?) may think it's ailing, but still want to improve it, not end it. The NC DMV sucks, but I don't want to abolish it. See how that works?

So, no, Marc's poll doesn't "demonstrate the British are unhappy with NHS." It just says they know it has problems.

Marc's poll doesn't "demonstrate the British are unhappy with NHS." It just says they know it has problems.

Amazing. I haven't read that level of sophistry since the last message I got from iwog. Again, you asked the initial question, and it got answered. You didn't like the answer, so now you're trying to change the question. Bad form.

Are you now asking for a poll that shows the Brits want to change to privatization? That poll would not be especially relevant to this discussion. There are many reasons why Brits might be concerned about changing to privatization at this point, after 60 years of socialized medicine, including the facts that they fear the unknown and that their taxes are now so oppressive that they believe they couldn't afford it. The fact remains that two out of three Brits are unhappy with their system.

Based on our recent experiences with Pelosi and Obama, it's understandable that you might think that MP Hannon is not in touch with the people he is supposed to be representing, but it doesn't seem like that.

It's a warning, and we should take it as such.

[By the way, oddly, I have to deal with the NC DMV myself, three times a year, for plates, and I think they do a great job. Mindless ministerial tasks are very well suited for government agencies. Healthcare is a different story.]

The headline says "Public unhappy with NHS" but the article? Not so much. The questions seemed to be asking the public to diagnose the "state of health" of the program, not asking their level of satisfaction with it. They were not even asked the question!

I've given you one hypothetical example above. Now suppose you asked Americans to say how "healthy" they think the SS system is. Do you think a large percentage of them might say,"Social Security is sick!"? Do you think that that would mean they didn't LIKE Social Security, or would it mean that they were concerned about it?

The fact is, I asked Marc to show me a poll that proves Brits are unhappy with NHS. He showed me one that says that many are WORRIED about it. Indeed, the one relevant number was that 40% would go private "if they could." That means that 60% WOULD NOT go private EVEN "if they could." Not sophistry at all. Just reading past the headline on a Murdoch-owned tabloid story, a feat of which you and Marc seem incapable.

This is not rocket surgery. These are simple English sentences. The poll does not show what Marc wants it to show, despite the headline.

Bruce Henry

Some might be easy here to you, but the price of fubaring Wizbang can be pricey.

Also, I noticed that Marc claimed there were "buttloads of others",( the "buttload" reference being a real shocker coming from Marc) but 24 hours later neither he nor anyone else has posted any.

Instead you guys just keep arguing that 40% is a majority. Or that concern equals disapproval. Or something.

Maggie, I don't know what you mean, but I'm guessing you're unhappy with me for posting consecutive comments?

BH
Let me put it bluntly then, you are
responsible for everything you post.
Any consequences therefore I'm sure you
understand. Or do you not read what you
post?
And it's not about the moved goalposts of
how many posts you've made.

Now I REALLY don't know what you mean, Maggie. This is a comment section on a blog. A blog I enjoy coming to.
Was that some kind of threat?
What consequences would those be? You could ban me. I would hate that, and I hope you don't, but I'd be OK.
Other than that, I'm not afraid of anyone on this blog or off it.
Sheeesh, what a grump.

Bruce,
I might be a grump, that doesn't have a thing
to do with your posts.
I'd advise you to go back and re-read your
posts.
And no one has threatened to ban you.

You have me at a disadvantage, Miss Maggie.

I seem to have offended you, but for the life of me I don't know what I did.

Clue me in, and I'll either attempt an explanation, or, if warranted, apologise for my offense. I've proven that I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong.

IF I'm wrong!