I agree SS – but I believe we need to understand the bigger problem to find the solution :

“Media” is the primary medium for communicaton
- especially for politicians – but this Mainstream Media is Corporate-based & Corporate-controlled – working within. State Capitalist System.

This System – which we all work under – survives & thrives only on competition & selfishness – not cooperation & care.

So, the corporate Media within our present system
is not designed to care – just as a shark is not designed to care.

Somehow, We the People, have to rise above ‘the system’ – and if a politician can help us in that endless quest, people will listen…and care…and vote accordingly.

People “switch off” because they no longer feel able to trust the politicians who represent them (or want to); because they are angry at the bullshit & lies which masquarade as truth & sincerity; because they are confused by the obfuscation in the media.

People can think for themselves (& act accordingly). People can understand for themselves the complexities of political theory. People do have an attention span greater than a goldfish….

But what people find difficult is to think CLEARLY.

Why ?

Answer that question, and people won’t “switch off”.

Outside the rather limited pool of people actively interested in politics and political theory all of the arguments one way or the other would be blown out of the water by a convincing soundbite catchphrase.

Vast numbers of voters on both sides of the Atlantic would switch off within a few words of any of the fact-laden arguments – and not because they are stupid, just because it is the way we are now.

Our best chance of progress lies with the parties who have the best stories also having the best policies because one without the other isn’t enough any more.

Our own fault, but the media are complicit. Even the supposed flagship politics show, Question Time, is little more than a circus now, where getting a round of applause is more important than being right.

I agree with you, Ash, on that one – and that is the main reason why we should avoid imitating the US :
It’s not a Democracy (of, by & for ALL people). It is a Plutocracy (of, by & for POWERFUL people).

It is therefore essentially a tyranny run by tyrants.

Is that what we want here in the UK ?

If so, vote for that Tory – Henry ‘Wannabe MP’
Smith.

1: Obama never said at any point in the whole process that he didn’t want a Public Option, in fact he continually said the opposite – so the comparison with Switzerland is not valid.

2: One of the major reasons that Obama has lost trust is that he has continually lied about Health Reform – and his biggest lie was that insuring an extra 40 million people wouldn’t cost any extra. The CBO shot that down in flames and he hasn’t really recovered since.

3: To be fair to the voters, they voted for Health Reform based on what Obama had said – as more and more has proven to be untrue they obviously lost confidence.

4: I do agree that the Singapore system has no chance of being introduced here – mainly because there is too much vested interest in keeping the NHS as it is.

I’m not sure that the Swiss/US comparison is actually valid – Switzerland has a very clear system of direct democracy where ultimate power lies with the people, the US is basically a corporate society where power lies with big business.

1) The Senate Bill was pretty close to the Swiss system: Mandatory insurance, private provision (no ‘public option’), support for people who are unable to afford premiums…

2) Your maths on cost is based on assumptions. If the overall cost rises, but at the same time more people are paying premiums, that means that the premium level per person could go down. Additionally, if the costs of publicly-funded or written off care were reduced because more people were covered by insurance, then the system would be more efficient.

3) The American public are not a homogeneous lump, but they do appear to be a little confused over the past year or so. They elected a man who campaigned for ‘Change’, and who said he would reform healthcare in the direction of extending coverage. And having done that, they now seem to be saying “Oh, actually, we don’t want much of that change at all, now we come to think of it”.

One fundamental thing about democracy is that the people should ‘own’ their democratic decisions. Otherwise, what’s the point?

4) You like the Singaporean system? Yeah, I’m sure it works in a compact city-state with a virtual one-party (originally a socialist party) monopoly, whose economic success is based on state planning, and where the government owns vast swathes of the economy. I’m not sure how much of their healthcare system can transfer to the UK without the other parts and at the same scale.

Which is why I compare Switzerland to the USA. Both are Federal democracies with high levels of local and state/cantonal autocracy. Both are more market oriented than most of Europe. Both are very keen on personal liberty – for natives at least – in he forms of gun ownership, direct democracy. Of course the major difference in in size.

Likewise the Singapore system offers better outcomes, costs less and everyone is covered than the NHS but it simply is not on the table – so there is no real point looking at them is there?

But you seem unwilling to admit that unless you can come up with a plan that either improves the healthcare of the vast majority who already have coverage they are happy with or reduces the cost for them, any reform is going to be unpopular with the general public.