New NHS chief could bring in paid-for, ‘America-type’ healthcare, warns union head

The Telegraph ^ | 10/24/2013 | Theo Merz

[markomalley]

The NHS could become an American-style service paid for through insurance contributions following the appointment of a new chief executive, the head of health at the country's largest union has suggested.

Christina McAnea, Unison's head of health, made the comments after Simon Stevens - a former advisor to Tony Blair who is currently an executive for a US private healthcare firm - was announced as the next head of the organisation.

She said she was “concerned” about what the move could mean.

“Is this the Tory and Lib Dem Government hoping to import America-type values into the NHS, a sort of insurance-type system?” she asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“We sincerely hope it’s not and there will be a massive opposition if that is what the intention is,” she said.

[Son House]

Democrats Heath care insurance web site glitches get reported
while their economics policies have been a disaster
for years and nary a word about all the ruined lives,
90,609,000 Americans 16 years or older not in Labor Force
and the media grant Democrats the status of
blaming it all on TEA Party Republicans
and a 3 week government shut down,
while those radio talk shows who would tell the truth are discredited.

[2ndDivisionVet]

No U-turns allowed.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

the media grant Democrats the status of blaming it all on TEA Party Republicans

By “the media” you primarily mean journalism, since you think that journalists are supposed to be objective, and in fact they are simpatico with the Democrats and hostile to the Republicans.

Well, nobody is objective. So if you find yourself offended at journalists for not being what nobody is, I’m sure the fault is your own. Certainly I myself fit into that same category for about half my life, so I can commiserate with you. But there is legitimate cause for taking offense - not for journalists’ failing to be objective, and still less for any good-faith attempts they may make to be objective. When journalists claim to actually be objective - or let others do it for them - it is at that moment that they cross the line. At that moment they cross the line from seeking the truth to proclaiming that they are above questioning because they are superior to you. At that moment you should know that you are dealing with a propagandist.

The word “sophistry” derives from the Greek word “Sophist” - which ironically means wise man. The Sophists of ancient times claimed to be wise - with the same intent as the journalist has in claiming to be objective. In each case it is a claim of superiority, and an ad hominem attack on anyone who disagreed with them. The term “philosopher” was adopted by people who opposed the sophists. The “philosopher” claimed only to love wisdom, rather than to actually be wise - thereby deflecting the sophist’s person-based claims and focusing on the facts and logic which related to the issue at hand. And so should we all.

In arguing an issue, we should focus on the facts and the logic of the case, and dismiss the journalist’s claim of objectivity as irrelevant.

All of which, admittedly, begs the question of how to attain a critical mass level of public attention to our exposition of facts and logic, against the propaganda wind of journalists who have been keeping the public in the dark and feeding it horse manure since journalism became a monopoly due to the unifying influence of the wire services - principally, whether or not exclusively, the AP.