There is something rather strange going on in the USA right now, well, that is, it all looks rather strange to us here in the UK, but then we’ve always thought of ourselves as a more enlightened sibling – we’re the older brother reading hard sums at Oxford whereas the USA is the High School kid who gives nought for anything not concerning his football team.
It possibly arrogant to view the current political opposition over Obama’s healthcare proposals as turkeys voting for christmas, but arrogance is what made our country, we were arrogant enough to invade lots of foreign countries 200 years ago and claim them as our own just because we could, and we were arrogant enough to believe that Australia was a barren wasteland of strange diseases and even stranger fauna, enough to send our worst criminals there to there certain death – we weren’t wrong about Australia though.
This article right here adequately describes the UK’s astonishment and bewilderment that a seemingly civilised society that copied our own version of democracy (there goes that arrogance again) should be so eager to express its outrage at the concept of social and medical care and heaven forbid, actually vote against the idea that healthcare should be free at the point of delivery.
Of course we have the benefit of fifty plus years of the National Health Service and while it has its detractors here, while we are constantly regaled with stories of waste and neglect in the NHS, there is no doubt that it was one of the finest ideas to be spawned from that surprise Labour Government of 1945 – before that the system of healthcare in the UK was a patchwork of private schemes funded by weekly subscription, private consultations that you paid for yourself, or charity, Clement Atlee’s new post war government suggested nationalisation (taking into public ownership) of many of the private and charity hospitals and a nationwide service based on three principles…
That it meets the needs of everyone
That it be free at the point of delivery
That it be based on clinical need and not the ability to pay
Of course we pay for it, we pay for it via general taxation and initially through a levy called the National Insurance Fund which is also provides for unemployment and other social benefits and a state retirement pension, my current payslip shows my National Insurance contributions for this year standing at just under 8% of my salary - not too expensive for all those benefits is it ?
And for all its critics (and there are many who nag at its administration but few who oppose it in principle) the NHS actually works.
For instance when three years ago I was viciously attacked by a bastard kidney stone (worse pain than childbirth and I don’t care what you say ladies) I, or rather my wife, rang the emergency services and requested medical help, the nice lady on the phone assessed the situation and decided that it was not life threatening and so an emergency paramedic was not wasted on me, instead a regular ambulance crew attended within the hour and took me to hospital where I received attention from several nurses and two doctors, drugs a-plenty were injected and ingested and finally by lunchtime I was given a surprisingly tasty sandwich in a lovely fluffy roll, a cup of adequate coffee and some ice cream to send me on my way home, pain free, all in all a successful morning spent in the bosom of the NHS.
Total cost to me ?
Nothing.
No insurance claims to make, no surprise uninsured elements to worry about, no no-claims bonus to lose, in fact no admin to take care of at all, I had no papers to sign, no stupid questions to answer, I arrived at the hospital and was attended to according to my clinical need and without regard to personal financial cost and I know for a fact (because it happened to my father) that if the kidney stone had not moved of its own accord then my subsequent treatment would have been planned, efficient, and free.
Now tell me thats not how it should work ?
Or put it another way, if any foreign visitor to this country should fall ill or befall a terrible (for instance) walking injury in the north of England this summer, lets say they might fall off a wall they are walking on, just for example, then they will be perfectly entitled to dial 999 and request medical attention, which will be provided without fear or favour, through to completion, for free – at some point an admin worker may tip-toe, embarrassed into the treatment room and whisper a question about holiday insurance, but if the answer is “No I have none” then thats fine too, you’ll still be treated through to completion, gratis, have this one on us, we’re nice people.
I defy anyone to try and find one opponent to the NHS in this country and if you do we’ll put him/her in a nice NHS funded lunatic asylum, compared to private health insurance our NIS levy is miniscule (believe me, I’ve compared) and compared to private health insurance our NIS levy covers every eventuality rather than the unlikely ones (believe me, I’ve compared) – so the burning question of the hour is…
Why are so many Americans so afraid of a government sponsored healthcare reform bill ?
[...] Healthcare Reform « Jerrychicken – The Diary tags: afford, all-looks, always-thought, funded-lunatic, health, health insurance, older, [...]
It baffles me too. I mean I’m sure there are reasons behind the opinion, but I just can’t work them out.
It is baffling. We actually have a form of socialized medicine here in the states. However, it’s not subsidized by the government but by those of us fortunate enough to carry private insurance. Seriously! How else can you explain $9 for a tylenol. My exorbitant insurance rates and deductibles are in place to cover expenses for not just me and my family but for all of the other people treated in this country that have no insurance. They are making up their losses through me!! And it sucks.
The “fact” (if it is fact) that I don’t understand in the article that I linked to is that in Texas only two thirds (lets say 65%) of the population have health insurance and yet 87% oppose an NHS-style healthcare system – thats one fifth of the population of Texas being offered healthcare that they don’t currently have – and they are saying no.
Either I’m completely mis-understanding what is going on or a lot of people have had their heads screwed with in a big way…
Gary, I read the article. It conveniently omits several key points. I shall only address one, that being that the Massachusetts senate election was the strongest Democratic seat in the Country – “Kennedy country” – as it’s commonly known. Registered Democratic voters outnumber registered Republican voters by 3:1. The democratic electorate lost the seat themselves. They voted against their leader, Obama. To suggest – as the article does – that the Republicans stoked up enough anger to win the election is simply wrong and nothing more than a cheap shot at painting the Republican party as a bunch of Southern rednecks. By the way, I’m an independent.
The main reason the dems lost was because of healthcare reform. The article omits specifically why people don’t like it. Let me enlighten you.
The vast, vast majority of Americans are fiscally responsible enough to purchase health insurance. For a lot of people, that may mean having to sacrificing less important spending in other parts of their lives. Having already paid taxes on their income and perhaps having sacrificed other spending, Obama wants to tax them on their health insurance policies to pay for those who are either too lazy or fiscally irresponsible to purchase their own. That, in a nutshell, is why his idea of healthcare reform is so unpopular.
Several months ago, I was sat at a bar. I guy walks in and sits next to me. He recognized my accent. He said this country (the US) needs a healthcare system like the NHS. However, he then told me that he shouldn’t complain because he decides to spend his money on beer and cigs instead of buying health insurance! In other words, he expected me to pay for his healthcare so he could carry on buying his booze and cigarettes. True story.
Those that do not earn enough are covered by state and federal governments, so don’t believe the usual misleading BBC diatribes proclaiming that the poor do not receive healthcare. They do. And when they do receive it, it is the best on the world.
The problem are the people like the guy at the bar who refuses to buy it or the small group of people that are just above the “poor” classification but truly cannot afford it.
I approach this healthcare problem from a somewhat unique perspective, not just from being a joint US/UK citizen. My US wife of twenty-five years is an anesthesiologist. My best friend from Horsforth who lives over here is also an anesthesiologist – interned at St. James then served his residency at Harvard Medical School. My former company, which I sold in 1998, specialized in advertising and marketing for hospitals and health insurors.
There are no winners when it comes to healthcare. Only losers. There is no perfect system. It doesn’t exist. The NHS is no better or worse than the US system.
My wife and friend practice at a large public hospital. They take both rich and poor patients. When my wife puts you to sleep, she doesn’t care how rich or poor you are or whether or not you’ve got health insurance. She declines no one. She uses the same drugs, equipment and procedures on all. Often, the BBC articles on US healthcare or utterly misleading.
The NHS simply does not have the money to provide the latest equipment, procedures or drugs that the US does. For example, the NHS sends doctors to my wife’s hospital to study and learn new procedures and equipment. The NHS rotate docs through her hospital all the time. Never is it the other way round. The NHS docs frequently comment that they simply don’t have access to “this” drug or “that” latest piece of equipment that is used at my wife’s hospital. This applies not only to the anesthesia department, but to all other surgery department as well.
Like it not, the US is the center of the universe when it comes to medical exploration and development. In part because of the size and diversity of population which offer medical/drug companies large sampling sizes for testing, but mainly because the insurance system reimburses these companies enough to where it’s worth their time and effort to develop their products in the first place. For example, in 2007, there were new 218 drugs approved for use by the US government. 214 of those were developed in the US by both domestic and foreign companies. The products developed in the US are then exported overseas.
As you can probably deduce, the strange twist in the tail is that it is in other countries best medical interests for the US to maintain an inefficient system so their populations can reap the rewards of medical advancements. These are the very same countries that criticize our system. They should be careful of what they wish for.
The NHS, through mandatory taxation, offers medical coverage to all. You don’t have to worry about losing your life savings if you become ill. On the other hand, when you actually need medical attention, the US system is far superior in terms of speed, care, technology and range of expertise. The US medical success rates are much higher than the NHS, glaringly so when it comes to cancer survival (do a google search).
As you can see, there are pros and cons to both systems. The NHS offers good medical care to everyone. US offers the best medical care on the planet, but not to everyone. When you’re not ill, it pays to be in the UK, but when you are, you want to be in the US, providing you have insurance.
Believe it or not, the US system doesn’t need that much tweaking to make it as close to perfect as you’ll find. The key is in insurance reform, not taxation. However both democrats and republicans are in the pockets of the insurance companies who make massive political donations, so there’s not much hope of meaningful reform.
On a personal note. I have no problem with a portion of my income helping those truly in need. I don’t know of a person who doesn’t, including my wife. It is the manner in which you garnish and distribute the money that is the problem.
Hope you find this helpful. Sorry it’s so long.
Enjoy reading your posts Gary. Past few months have been chaotic for me, so I’ve not been able to comment much. A little surprised to see the Rhinos got beat at home by Cas. Did you go to the game?
Thanks for the informative reply, its always useful to have two points of view in any discussion.
This doesn’t paraphrase your reply but I feel that it encapsulates the whole issue – “The NHS offers good medical care to everyone. US offers the best medical care on the planet, but not to everyone. When you’re not ill, it pays to be in the UK, but when you are, you want to be in the US, providing you have insurance.”
I’ve never felt the need to have (for instance) BUPA insurance in the UK and I don’t know anyone who does have it where it is not provided by their employer, and further, its more common now for only certain public employers to provide it as part of your terms of employment (the police for instance), I haven’t felt the need for it because I can’t afford the premiums for something that I get for free anyway (ok I know the NHS isn’t free but the perception is that it is)
Further than that the NHS will often use private hospitals for your NHS treatment now, they have funding to do this in order to reduce treatment waiting lists, and anyone who has used a hospital service during this Labour government will admit (sometimes grudgingly) that the service has improved radically since they started pumping taxation into it, my wife needs physio on a shoulder injury, the wait for an appointment was two weeks and we had a choice of attending eight different treatment centres at our convenience, some of those centres offered an immediate appointment but we chose the new Otley hospital and a two week wait – I don’t think that private health would have got us a better deal.
Last year my friend Chris found that he needed immediate treatment for a brain tumour, he was already in the LGI when they told him and so his consultant operated there the next day. After the op Chris told the consultant that he had BUPA cover (through his employ) and would it be possible to be moved to the private Roundhay hospital, the consultant told him that he worked at the BUPA hospital one day a week and that he would look after him there, but as he did four days a week at the LGI why opt for a more diluted service ? The NHS won out again.
I feel that a service like the one you describe is doomed to failure and I thank you for highlighting that, using private health insurance to fund an NHS style service for all is ultimately not going to work, the introduction of the NHS in 1946 was hugely radical and in effect it brought into public ownership all of the private and charitable hospitals in one fell swoop in the same way that they did for public ownership of the railways and utilities, indeed such sweeping socialist reforms put the frighteners up the American Government of the time as they thought we had turned to communism – it would not happen today, it was unique to its time.
On the rugby – yes I went, I managed to blag a free ticket again (to pay is to fail), Cas were by far the better team and made very few mistakes whereas Leeds blew every chance they had in a joke performance – if its a sign of things to come then the league could be very close this year.