Not Exactly the War of the Roses…
Fred Barnes is a terribly stupid man. In asserting that “Obamacare” will create a bitterly contentious political environment for decades to come, Barnes writes:
We only have to look at Great Britain to get a glimpse of the future. The National Health Service—socialized medicine—was created in 1946 and touted as the envy of the world. It’s been a contentious issue ever since. Its cost and coverage are perennial subjects of debate. The press, especially England’s most popular newspaper, The Daily Mail, feasts on reports of long waiting periods, dirty hospitals, botched care and denied access to treatments.
A Conservative member of the European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, last year in an interview on Fox News denounced the NHS as a “60-year mistake,” declaring he “wouldn’t wish it on anybody.” As prime minister, Margaret Thatcher bravely cut NHS spending in the 1980s, but current Tory leaders regard criticism of the NHS as too risky. “The Conservative Party stands four square behind the NHS,” its leader, David Cameron, said in response to Mr. Hannan.
So, to be clear, the debate over the NHS is so bitterly contentious, and so fractious, that the leader of the Conservative Party is unwilling to come out against it? The NHS is so unpopular that the Tories are afraid to publicly oppose it? The only voice that Barnes is able to muster in opposition to the NHS is a Conservative MEP? Does Barnes understand, I wonder, that an MEP is not an MP?
Hell, right now the question of whether our President is legally qualified to serve is “a contentious issue,” in the sense of “some moron with a microphone is willing to bitch about it.”
Barnes’s solution is to give in to the bullies.
Of which he is one.
But he’s Very Serious!
[...] PDRTJS_settings_709279_post_3825 = { "id" : "709279", "unique_id" : "wp-post-3825", "title" : "Wanker+of+the+Day", "item_id" : "_post_3825", "permalink" : "http%3A%2F%2Fibwblog.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2F18%2Fwanker-of-the-day-27%2F" } Fred Barnes. [...]
Even before we get to the point of the Mail’s extremely dubious quality, it’s simply not true to say that it’s England’s most popular newspaper. The Sun has nearly a million more readers.
Isn’t the Mail a tabloid composed of mainly photos? Maybe that’s why Barnes remembers it so well.
Actually, the Mail is a fishwrap composed mainly of lies and racism.
And paper, I guess. But mostly the lies and racism.
Barnes of course is right that passing the bill will crete a bitterly contentious environment for decades . . .
. . . because
ifwhen the bill passes, Barnes will spend the next several decades bitching about it.The public debate over NHS priorities, policies and budgets is a good thing — the best thing about it, in fact. It’s called democracy. Because the people own it, they get to argue and yell and scream about it and affect is policies and practices through the political process; and also through the very open, transparent, and inclusive manner in which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence works.
Democracy means people disagree and they get to argue about it and then they vote. That’s what it’s all about. That’s how the people get the health care they want.
Barnes is both stupid and dishonest. That article reeks of fear, the fear that it will be, if not popular (although it might be), at least widely accepted, and nothing the Republicans can do will change it. Run on the promise to repeal it? Give back the insurance companies’ ability to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions? Take away coverage for 30 million? Another third rail, and they know it.
I don’t think it’s actually correct that Thatcher cut NHS spending in real terms, either, though clearly cut back the rate of growth (whereas Callaghan/Healey in 1978 had made real terms cuts). Having said that I can’t find a straightforward link to prove it, but I’m sure I’ve seen papers that make this claim. ie, even Thatcher didn’t, only the IMF did.
Yes, heaven forfend that we see an end to the current era of comity and bipartisan cooperation.
Pfft, anything short of all the liberals boarding a rocket-ship and launching themselves into the sun will “create a bitterly contentious political environment for decades to come”. And even that’s no guarantee.
I hear that Mars has soap roots and single-payer bushes! I’d buy that for a dollar!
Bluenose!
I especially appreciate the way Mr. Barnes takes something someone says:
“The Conservative Party stands four square behind the NHS,” its leader, David Cameron, said
Which is the opposite of what Barnes WANTS to hear, so Barnes says that:
“but current Tory leaders regard criticism of the NHS as too risky.”
So, when Superman says he believes “in Truth, Justice, and the American Way” Barnes thinks he means lying, injustice, and some foreigner’s way.
“… current Tory leaders regard criticism of the NHS as too risky.”
That’s because voters like the NHS. And they would vote against people who want to trash it. And the people who want to trash it would lose their seats. And the Tories know it. So they don’t do that thing that would cause them to lose their seats.
That’s called democracy. I guess Fred Barnes doesn’t like that.
The Daily Mail might criticize the NHS for poor hygiene and waste but I don’t think they are against it because it benefits large numbers of their readers who are old.
NHS hospitals can quite legitimately be attacked for their standard of cleanliness, but the biggest cause is the privatization of cleaning services in hospital by the Thatcher government which the current Labour government did nothing to correct.
“Fred Barnes is a terribly stupid man.”
Allow me to shorten that sentence without even slightly altering its intended meaning: “Fred Barnes.”
Speaking as a British conservative who has a fair share of NHS horror stories that I won’t burden you with, I nevertheless have to endorse the motion that Fred Barnes is a very stupid man.
I think previous commentators have made two of the key points here. The first is that Mrs Thatcher didn’t actually cut health spending. Health spending increased in real terms pretty much throughout the Thatcher ministry. The second, absolutely vital, point is that Britain spends less than half as much per head on healthcare as the USA does. Given that, there’s a good case to be made that we get by pretty well. Life expectancy in the UK is barely lower than in the USA and you’re almost certainly better off being poor and ill in the UK than in the USA. The best American health care is almost certainly better than the best NHS care, but the best American health care largely caters to the upper-middle class and above and rich Brits can pay to go private and receive world class treatment.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t real problems with the NHS. There are – serious problems – and I don’t think I’d encourage the USA to emulate the British system. But that’s not what’s on offer in your country anyway. It’s a bulls*** argument.
It’s been a contentious issue ever since.
Barnes would be hard-pressed to find contention about the existence of the NHS from the 50s, or the 60s, or the 70s.
Not so much “terrible stupidity” as “flat lie”.
Even if Barnes were right about the NHS (which he isn’t), what does this have to with the health care debate in the US? The Senate bill + reconciliation sidecar aren’t remotely like the NHS (which is both a good and bad thing).
Life expectancy in the UK is barely lower than in the USA
Actually, it’s higher.
Oops, that last one was me.
The existence of a standing army has been a contentious issue in the United States for more than two hundred twenty years. Its cost and use are perennial subjects of debate. The press feasts on reports of unnecessary weapons systems, cost overruns, and objections to the makeup and integration of the armed forces in terms of race, gender and sexual preference.