The UK Guardian is Murdoch's paper, right?

[NewJeffCT]

I just wanted to confirm that to respond to a LTTE that quotes stats from the Guardian about how bad the health care system is in the UK & France compared to the US.

Thanks

[Roland99]

1. No way! The Guardian is rather left leaning

These are the papers owned by News Corp:

http://www.newscorp.com/operations/newspapers.html

[movonne]

9. This is a joke, or somebody does not read the Guardian..

[IChing]

2. Where is your link to the guardian article?

On healthcare and no I think it is not own my Murdock, he does own the times.

[NewJeffCT]

22. sorry, no link... and, the LTTE is not online

it's a small local. I have had several pro universal health care articles in the past several weeks & finally somebody responded.

It was about waiting in line for health care. It quoted ridiculous stats that 1 in 4 cardiac patients die while waiting and 1 in 5 lung cancer patients wait so long as to be untreatable.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Very wrong.

You might want to see if you can find the article cited from the Guardian. I don't think it would be their editorial policy to scrap NHS for the mess we Americans call a health care system.

[punpirate]

5. Nope...

... it's not. The Guardian/Observer is a non-profit, and one of the most reliably neutral papers in the UK. Their reporting is first-rate.

Out of curiosity, would you mind reproducing the LTTE to which you're intending to reply?

[movonne]

6. I think this must be a joke, or somebody does not read much....

[movonne]

7. I think this must be a joke, or somebody does not read much....

[Stephanie]

8. wrong wrong wrong

UK Guardian is publicly funded - like PBS and NPR.

[Bossy Monkey]

13. Just a company

Not that Wikipedia is unimpeachable, but you can follow their links if you don't believe them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Media_Group

[Frederik]

10. Guardian is owned by a foundation

They truly are a guardian.

[Bossy Monkey]

14. See #13 nt

[applegrove]

11. Op-Ed pages are filled with propaganda from the right. Every country

in the west has some form of universal health care because it is more efficient and equitable. I mean so some specialized hospitals in the US have really amazing new procedures. Then in a few months they get taken up by the other hospitals all over the world.

Is your health care system bad or good if people die of very treatable illnesses because they have no money or coverage - but you have the newest procedure by 6 months?

I'm guessing the better system is the one that actually treats people. And universal health care systems invent world class procedures themselves that the USA follows. USA is a clearing house for the world's best and brightest scholars and has been for 50 years. So there is always going to be a certain amount of creativity and invention above what other countries do. But that really says nothing about how good the health care system is if it does not deliver to 40% of the people. Or if it causes half of all bankruptcies and stops job creation. Or if it gives monopolies more monopoly power than they actually need to create new drugs. (Monopolies are not great..unless there is a bugaboo in the delivery like there is in health care... defensive medicine makes all the difference).

I skip over the letter section. Because though some letters are informative and it is good to get perspective.. like the boards so much of it is planned propaganda.

In Canada the right wing think tanks are trying to get us to start the process of going private with the health care (it is private in many ways). But the goal of right wing think tanks is for the markets to work perfect for elites.. and killing the health care that bonds the people together to regulate.. goes with the direction their blood flows in. I have never seen an argument from a right winger on privatized medicine that focused on the benefits of the health of the people and put that before profit & riches.

They have an awfully odd way of valuing quality of life in that regard.

[Brian Morans]

12. You must be thinking of the Telegraph

better named the Torygraph

[CHIMO]

15. History of the Guardian

The Manchester Guardian was founded by John Edward Taylor in 1821, and was first published on May 5 of that year. The paper's intention was the promotion of the liberal interest in the aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre and the growing campaign to repeal the Corn Laws that flourished in Manchester during this period. The Guardian was published weekly until 1836 when it was published on Wednesday and Saturday becoming a daily in 1855, when the abolition of Stamp Duty on newspapers permitted a subsequent reduction in cover price (to 2d) allowed the paper to be published daily.

The Guardian achieved national and international recognition under the editorship of CP Scott, who held the post for 57 years from 1872. Scott bought the paper in 1907 following the death of Taylor's son, and pledged that the principles laid down in the founder's will would be upheld by retaining the independence of the newspaper. CP Scott outlined those principals in a much-quoted article written to celebrate the centenary of the paper: "Comment is free, but facts are sacred... The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard."

After retiring from an active role in managing and editing the paper, Scott passed control to his two sons, John Russell Scott as manager and Edward Taylor Scott as editor. Realising that the future independence of the paper would be jeopardised in the event of the death of one or the other, the two sons made an agreement that in the event of either's death, one would buy the other's share.

CP Scott died in 1932 and was followed only four months later by Edward, so sole ownership fell to JR Scott. Faced with the potential of crippling death duties and the predatory interest of competitors, Scott contemplated a radical move to ensure the future of both the Guardian and the highly profitable Manchester Evening News. He concluded that the only solution was to give away his inheritance, a far-reaching solution which provoked close advisor (and future Lord Chancellor) Gavin Simonds to conclude: "you are trying to do something which is very repugnant to the law of England. You are trying to divest yourself of a property right".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/information/theguardian/story/0,12002,1038110,00.html

[blondeatlast]

16. Perhaps you should read the G and decide what YOU think.

From the first time I read it, I could see what their political leanings were.

Love to see a linkie to the LTTE, btw.

[Chomp]

17. The Guardian's...

...views on the world would be very similar to many DUers. If you are looking for a serious global mainstream media voice of the left and havn't tried the Guardian, give it a go.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

I love it, despite the fact that it is sneered at in the UK in some quareters as a kind of pinko, middle-class, elitist, intellectual, navel-gazing, effete newspaper. But then that is the fate of liberals the world over. The phrase "Guardian Reader" is a regular snide insult (thrown by left and right alike) to donate this sandle-wearing or champagne socialism.

That said, in a good liberal way, the Guaridan will hammer their "own side" when needs be - they have gone after the Labour Party in government just as hard as they did the Tories. Similarly, while the papers' editorial line was very anti-war, there was no whip on it's columnists and some of these columnints were "pro-war" (albeit justifying it from a leftist perspective. Most notable among these David Aaronovitch.)

[Swamp Rat]

18. Nope n/t

[firefox]

19. London Times and Sky TV

I believe he owns the London Times and its sales have plummeted but he eats the losses it now produces because it is a flagship newspaper. His company, Newscorp?, owns Sky TV that I believe has monopoly status in satellite television in England.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

24. He does own the London Times and The Sun. nt

[blondeatlast]

20. Are you convinced yet? Just askin'!

:hi:

[Domitan]

21. Yes

and the New York Post/Washington Times are most supportive of the Clintons.

[LynnTheDem]

26. OUCH! Now that's biting sarcasm!

LOL! :D

[NewJeffCT]

23. OK, no more need to correct me

I didn't realize I had to step out when making the initial request.

[LynnTheDem]

25. Wrong.

Very very very wrong.

[NewJeffCT]

27. Here is the LTTE I want to respond to:

In response to "National Health Care." (probably my LTTE)
Do you like waiting in lines? Get used to it. Most so-called "elective" services in Canada & Britain such as hip replacement services can take months of waiting your turn in the queue. Here are stats from London's Guardian. "One in four cardiac patients die while waiting, and one in five lung cancer patients wait so long they go from being treatable to untreatable." Do you like subpar facilities? When the government places controls on the costs of services and equipment, quality is also controlled. Do you like forking over money to Uncle Sam? Universal or "socialized" health care systems like those found in Sweden take a nice-sized chunk of your hard earned dollars, leaving your pocket every month. Many uninsured people qualify for federally and state funded programs. There are ways to change the system, communism is not one of them.

There are a ton of easy things to respond to - just wanted to know on the Guardian, one which I stand corrected.

[Bossy Monkey]

28. You know what? The letter-writer was half right

The quote is from the Guardian's site, but only because the Observer is owned by the same people as the Guardian, as mentioned above. Tip: google something salient from the quote you're looking at, like say "One in four cardiac patients die while waiting" and you find:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/story/0,1480,679712,00.html

NHS reform - towards consensus?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A sick NHS: the diagnosis

The NHS reform report by The Observer's health editor, to be published this week by the Adam Smith Institute. Why is the NHS failing to deliver - and what are the successes that any reformed system must match?

The NHS debate - Observer special

Anthony Browne and Matthew Young
Sunday April 7, 2002

The Symptoms
The NHS has a severe shortage of capacity, directly costing the lives of tens of thousands of patients a year. We have fewer doctors per head of population than any European country apart from Albania. We import nurses and doctors from the world's poorest countries, and export sick people to some of the richest.

More than one million people - one in sixty of the population - are waiting for treatment. They are waiting far too long, every step of the way - for the first appointment with a GP, for initial consultation with a specialist, for diagnosis and for treatment. Patients needing heart bypasses often have to wait over a year for treatment. One in four cardiac patients die while waiting and one in five lung cancer patients wait so long they go from being treatable to untreatable. The cancer survival rate in Britain is lower for cancers than almost all other developed nations. World Health Organisation figures show that if the UK had the same cancer survival rates as the European average, it would save 10,000 lives a year; if we had the best in Europe, it would save 25,000 lives a year.
(more at link)

[NewJeffCT]

29. OK, then, how do I respond to that?

I'm sure people here wait as well, not to mention the 47 million without health care...

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. It's true that the Observer report wants to reform the British NHS

but it's also worth pointing out it wants a European system, and repeatedly says how bad the American one is:

The reality is that many other systems fail in one or more of these criteria, as NHS defenders are quick to point out. For example, the US system is often accused of providing an inferior service for people on low incomes or imposing insupportable burdens on the chronically sick.
...
To ensure full access to the poor, all those below a certain income - in particular the unemployed - will have their insurance premiums paid for out of general taxation, as for example happens in Netherlands, and has recently been introduced in France. This ensures that the poor have access to the same hospitals and doctors as the rich, rather than being relegated to a 'sink service', as can happen in the US, and is rapidly happening in the UK. Health care would indeed be a genuine single-tier service.
...
To make sure that the cost of insurance doesn't fall unduly heavily on people with lower incomes who don't qualify for free insurance, the insurance premiums should be income-related. This redistribution from rich to poor is standard practice in almost all social insurance schemes (but not in countries like the US that depend on private insurance). Depending on the scale used, it is quite possible to create a system of paying for health that is as progressive as general taxation. The sliding scale of contributions will also make it far more politically acceptable.
...
The cost of insurance should be paid by individuals themselves, as happens in Switzerland. France and Germany have shown that relying too heavily on employers to pay social insurance can create a "tax on jobs" that can damage employment, and have been taking measures to redress this. It will also prevent the problems of the US, where health cover attaches to a particular job, leading to 'job lock' and damaging labour market inflexibility. Making people pay personally makes it easier for them to stay with the same insurance scheme when they move from job to job, or as they move in and out of the labour market.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/story/0,1480,679722,00.html

The "one in five" and "one in four" figures are presumably accurate (The Adam Smith Institute, while far right, does have a decent reputation), though it's not clear exactly where they came from. British spending on health has historically been the lowest of the richer Euorpean countries (eg France, Germany Italy, Netherlands etc. - it may have beaten Greece and other countries woth a lower GDP), and waiting lists have been a real problem (getting better now, with more expenditure - but the statistics are difficult to obtain and trust). Note the stats were from 2002. If I find reliable stats from 2004, I'll post them.

[NewJeffCT]

31. Perfect - here is my response

The person who wrote "Wait in Line" and quoted to UK Guardian/Observer about the problems with the health care system in Britain should have read the whole article. The whole article advocates going to a more European/Canadian style system instead of the partially private one that Britain has now. They specifically flag the US system as "providing inferior service for people on low incomes or imposing insupportable burdens on the chronically sick," and call the US system a "sink service" that also leads to "job lock." Typical Dittohead cherry-picking data that is not supported by the full article.

[tenshi816]

32. Wow - that LTTE!!!

No wonder you want to respond to it.

I live in the UK and would find it so hard to go back home to the States and have to put up with all the healthcare BS people have to go through nowadays.

Yes, the NHS has its problems but the good far outweighs the bad, and it's such a relief to know it's there for everybody. NHS doctors and nurses literally saved my unborn baby's life in the third trimester of a difficult pregnancy (for which I will be eternally grateful), and at the end of it we weren't swamped with the bills that would normally arrive after a six-week hospital stay.

Yes, we pay high taxes but it's no worse than paying sky-high healthcare premiums. In fact, from what I've been reading here on DU, many of you pay premiums that astonish me!

Sorry to rant and I know this is a topic maybe better addressed in a thread of its own since the original post was just asking about Guardian ownership and not for opinions on socialized medicine.

Anyway, go get 'em NewJeffCT - that letter needs a response!