US Adverts on National Healthcare

SO when is anyone going to answer me about what the NHS has to do with the proposed bill?

I mean, if this is about actually enlightening people about the realities, why the strawman?  If there is so much concern about the proposals, wouldn't you think the subject should be about the proposals?  I mean, this is meant to be about open discourse and everything!

It doesn't.

But the neo-cons of the American Republican party operate best when they have a bogeyman.

The fact is that under the last 10 years waiting times have reduced considerable, in fact only last week there was a report out that said England no longer has waiting lists because the times had fallen below the targets.

Typical bureaucratic double-speak.  If you still have to wait then you are on a waiting list, even if the average waiting time has met some arbitrarily set target. 

The vast majority of people in this country, whilst they may feel there are problems within the NHS would tend to feel the solution would be to put more money into it rather than to move to a private insurance based system

I would say that the majority of people don't necessarily want more money put into the NHS, they just want the money which is already going into it to be spent properly and efficiently, and on the things it was originally intended for.

As for inefficiency, I don't see how anyone who has lived in Britain for a number of years can have failed to have seen the frequent reports of waste and inefficiency in the NHS.  Even 20 years ago it had grown to the point of being satirized in an episode of Yes, Minister, in which a new hospital was supposedly the best-run hospital in the country according to all government statistics - The only problem being that it had no doctors, nurses or patients, only administrators. 

I think I'll rely on personal experience and news reports rather than a 20 year old sit-com for my facts about and opinions of the NHS, thank you very much.

You're twisting what I said.  Read it again.  I said that this aspect of the NHS had already become a topic for satire because of the frequent news reports of waste and inefficiency. 

No, people have been waiting less than they used to wait. 

Less, on average, than they used to wait just a few years ago perhaps, but not necessarily less than they would have had to wait some years before that.   Just because the time has dropped from what it was a few short years ago does not automatically mean that the existing times are acceptable.

You ignored the last bit: People still pay less for healthcare in the UK per capita even with private insurance/doctors. People don't just go private because NHS isn't delivering what it's supposed to deliver.  They also go private because they want something that the NHS never was intended to deliver or because they want something that the NHS would love to deliver but will never realistically be able to deliver.  I am not saying that people don't feel let down when they have to go private, just that it isn't always the case.

If someone goes private for something like trivial cosmetic surgery which is not a medical need that's fine.  But when somebody has to go private to get treatment which is supposed to be available under the NHS, then clearly something about the system is not right.  And when people who have been paying into the system for decades on the understanding that certain things are covered, are now told that they will have to pay again, then it is nothing short of governmental fraud. 

And a system where over 30% of healthcare costs are due to insurance paperwork is more efficient? 

No, I'm not saying that the present state of the system in the U.S. does not leave much to be desired.  I'm just saying that the NHS is not the perfect role model either.

Less, on average, than they used to wait just a few years ago perhaps, but not necessarily less than they would have had to wait some years before that.   Just because the time has dropped from what it was a few short years ago does not automatically mean that the existing times are acceptable.

Do you remember what spawned this whole hip replacement side discussion?  You saying that people over 65 waited 2-3 years for hip replacement.  They don't and they haven't in the very least in a long while.  The only evidence you've provided that people ever have waited that long is anecdotal from the '80s.

If someone goes private for something like trivial cosmetic surgery which is not a medical need that's fine.  But when somebody has to go private to get treatment which is supposed to be available under the NHS, then clearly something about the system is not right.  And when people who have been paying into the system for decades on the understanding that certain things are covered, are now told that they will have to pay again, then it is nothing short of governmental fraud. 

When did the UK government promise that the NHS would cover everything other than trivial operations?  You're ignoring that the way the system works now, what people pay in, whether it's contribution to the NHS, premiums on private insurance, or out of pocket payments, the average person pays less than the US.

No, I'm not saying that the present state of the system in the U.S. does not leave much to be desired.  I'm just saying that the NHS is not the perfect role model either.

I was just bringing up something that was actually relevant to what the debate in the US should be about.  The NHS, love it or hate it, isn't relevant because the US is not headed towards government run healthcare.

Yes, the US system sucks.  We have death panels already.  For the uninsured, it's the healthcare providers themselves.  For those with insurance, it's the insurance company.

You can pay into a system for years in the US as well.  But for many insurance companies, it's in their best interest to try to exclude you from any expensive treatment.  They hire investigators and doctors whose sole duty is to prevent policy holders from being reimbursed or to prevent future claims.  There is no alternative for people in this situation.  They either pay out of pocket or go without treatment. 

There are some charities that will pay from some treatments.  I've tried to get into a program to pay for my prescriptions and I've had family members take part in other programs.  It's not always easy to get accepted, and they always have a very low income limit.  I wasn't able to get into any programs despite the fact that my prescriptions cost more than half of what I earned at the time.

No one truly knows how many people don't get treatment because they are uninsured, underinsured, or have had problems with their insurance company.  These are the real waiting lists.

I hope this is done right as well, that's why these attempts at scaring people unnecessarially incenses me.  Of course, I am hoping for national insurance which will be the gold standard for the world.  I won't move back to the States until a proper healthcare system is in place.

No, I'm not saying that the present state of the system in the U.S. does not leave much to be desired.  I'm just saying that the NHS is not the perfect role model either.

When something even remotely similar to the NHS gets proposed for the US, your comment will have relevance. Until then, it's irrelevant however good or bad the NHS might be. I am not sure why this is so different to grasp.

When something even remotely similar to the NHS gets proposed for the US, your comment will have relevance. Until then, it's irrelevant however good or bad the NHS might be. I am not sure why this is so different to grasp.

I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp that the majority of Americans don't want government run health care, which is definitely where the road will lead with the current bill as it is. It's very clear that this administration is out of touch with the majority of Americans, since 85% polled are happy with their current healthcare situation. This would have been a tough sell in a very good situation, but with the economy tanking and our deficit spiraling out of control, it was a very bad move to try and force a botched and rushed bill on the people.

Do I feel that healthcare reform needs to happen--OF COURSE, but not forced down our throats only to find out later what all the details involve. Btw, before blaming 'neo-cons' for everything, realize that the democratic party is split on this, which is the main hurdle in passing this current bill. The democrats don't need the republicans to pass anything while they control the house and senate.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/21/obama.democrats/index.html

I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp that the majority of Americans don't want government run health care, which is definitely where the road will lead with the current bill as it is. It's very clear that this administration is out of touch with the majority of Americans, since 85% polled are happy with their current healthcare situation. This would have been a tough sell in a very good situation, but with the economy tanking and our deficit spiraling out of control, it was a very bad move to try and force a botched and rushed bill on the people.

Do I feel that healthcare reform needs to happen--OF COURSE, but not forced down our throats only to find out later what all the details involve. Btw, before blaming 'neo-cons' for everything, realize that the democratic party is split on this, which is the main hurdle in passing this current bill. The democrats don't need the republicans to pass anything while they control the house and senate.

I'm just curious, where did you get your information about the 85% polled? I just want to read it for curiosity's sake...

Even though the NHS has nothing to do with health care reform proposals (and it's not just about the ads but a concerted effort to propagandise this issue in many forms of media), since you've asked:

British woman tricked into appearing on an anti-NHS advert  She's not the only one.  Others have talked about being duped into participating.
In Defence of the NHS (talks about some of the lies in the ads and elsewhere during this "debate")

Interesting find about Kate Spall and Katie Brickell. They've both been working to get better cancer treatment on the NHS for a while and very critical of the NHS system. They've both been very happy to share their stories in the press long before the US ads, so I would think that they both must have had an idea that these stories would be aired in the US.

http://www.goodnewsblog.com/2008/05/16/hero-helps-others-fight-for-cancer-drug



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-1114446/A-smear-test-saved-life.html



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1081167/Bride-told-THREE-times-young-smear-test-marries-sweetheart-given-just-years-live.html

http://news.five.tv/news.php?news=1209

As for the Washington Post article you linked, I found this response in the comments section very interesting and the links from this same doctor are interesting as well:


drritapal wrote:
I found Lord Darzi's view to be a fictional representation of the current situation in the NHS.

I am a whistleblower. I whistleblew as a very junior doctor in North Staffordshire NHS Trust Stoke on Trent UK. In 1998, there was no basic equipment for emergencies, observation levels for patients were painfully poor, staffing levels were inadequate. Supervision for junior doctors was non existent. These problems were never improved but persisted until 2005 when the ward was finally shut down due to my insistence. Despite three reports verifying that I was correct, no one was held accountable. I was though harassed by my regulatory body for about 5 years after that. This regulatory body refused to investigate the legitimate concerns raised. Indeed, no authority conducted a broader data study of my concerns. No lessons were learned from it. The problem had persisted for many years before and after me. I simply raised the concern one bright sunny morning completely by accident. Yes, I needed a basic drip set to save a patient and there wasn't one. This was the first world health service not the third world.

The NHS was based on a good philosophy. I have always believed in free healthcare for all but it has its pitfalls in that elements of it are being privatised. Lord Darzi is responsible for some of those policies and indeed his actions dictate that he is a fan of he US system. This is quite the opposite to his view above.

Ward 87 is marketed as an isolated incident. Sadly, these are not isolated incidents but common ones.

In the US, whistleblowers are respected and congratulated. In the UK they are ostracized and side lined. Their concerns are marginalised. The Department of Health documentation as well as that from the UK's regulatory body the GMC shows that maximum efforts were used to silence me by saying I was either mad, bad or sad. There are various judgments and reports detailing their efforts at essentially undermining my concerns.

The fact remains that according to the WHO figures as assessed by the Tax Payers Alliance, the UK is 29 percent more deadlier than the rest of Europe. I simply raised one of the reasons for this death rate, The healthcare is much like the lottery in the UK. The NHS is struggling to retain staff, it is also struggling to provide basic care to its patients. These are the flaws of the NHS that Lord Darzi refuses to acknowledge. The problem with the British is that they wish to conceal the problems and hope they will disappear. Of course, the NHS's problems have never disappeared. Other health services in Europe work very well. The issue with the UK is really about the manner in which the NHS is mismanaged.

It should be noted that when I emailed Lord Darzi requesting that Ward death rates were monitored so poor healthcare was quickly detected, he refused to respond. He continues to be in denial about the current state of the NHS.

In all honesty, the NHS does not monitor how well it functions. Statistics are cherry picked to provide a "image". The Department of Health UK admitted that there was no regulations to ensure that death rate recordings were mandatory. That is why no one knows how many people died on Ward 87 - because no death rates were kept. We can be sure the care was very poor compromising patient care and there was a high level of deaths. The probability is that because there is no way of monitoring poor care on a ward, we have to rely on adhoc complainants or whistleblowers - both of whom are not a scientific way of measuring the performance of healthcare. Of course, the Department of Health recently compromised in saying tha hospital death rates should be recorded but that was after Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust were many thousands died needlessly. Again, hospital death rates are a statistical smokescreen. High death rate on one ward cannot be detected at this present time.

I wish the US well in its healthcare system. At least each side cares enough about it to debate it properly. The UK's head is in the sand and its public are suffering in silence.

Regards

Dr Rita Pal
Ward 87 Whistleblower North Staffordshire NHS Trust UK.

http://ward87whistleblower.googlepages.com/home

http://www.nhsexposed.com/about/about.shtml

http://www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6795466.ece

“The NHS let me down and I just wanted to make the point that people should not rely solely on it. But what I said has been skewed out of proportion. I am slightly worried that people might think I am taking a negative position on the NHS.

“My point was not that the NHS shouldn’t exist or that it was a bad thing. I think that our health service is not perfect but to get better it needs more public money, not less. I didn’t realise it was having such a political impact. I did sign a piece of paper saying they could do what they wanted, so it’s my own fault.”

"I think it's quite hurtful for anyone to think that I am anti-NHS."

I'm just curious, where did you get your information about the 85% polled? I just want to read it for curiosity's sake...

http://americanhealthsolution.org/assets/Uploads/Blog/High-Satisfaction-with-Quality-and-Current-Coverage2.pdf

I think this Washington Post article is good, as it is well rounded and explains many of the downfalls in our current system. I am very much for reforming our system, but I would like to see a bill that is thoughtfully crafted (not hastily as is the current proposal), easy to understand, and with no surprises that are hidden in the fine print:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081100048.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6795466.ece

“The NHS let me down and I just wanted to make the point that people should not rely solely on it. But what I said has been skewed out of proportion. I am slightly worried that people might think I am taking a negative position on the NHS.

Well, I don't see how her point of view has been taken out of proportion, as she's been saying the same thing in the British press. She HAS taken a negative position on the NHS and it's practices in her case, and chose to share her story with the press.

Well, I don't see how her point of view has been taken out of proportion, as she's been saying the same thing in the British press. She HAS taken a negative position on the NHS and it's practices in her case, and chose to share her story with the press.

Yes, she does have some negative views on the NHS and she is in the process of campaigning to improve the system - after all it has its flaws too. However, what she did not agree to was having her words used in a TV campaign designed to scare Americans into thinking that socialised healthcare is evil. She is not against the UK system, but she is trying to improve it by campaigning to make a particular cancer drug available to all on the NHS. Her mother was unable to get the drug in Wales because it was too expensive and she unfortunately lost her life (the drug would not have cured her, but could have prolonged her life), however, the drug is available on the NHS in several parts of England - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6945602.stm.

http://americanhealthsolution.org/assets/Uploads/Blog/High-Satisfaction-with-Quality-and-Current-Coverage2.pdf

I think this Washington Post article is good, as it is well rounded and explains many of the downfalls in our current system. I am very much for reforming our system, but I would like to see a bill that is thoughtfully crafted (not hastily as is the current proposal), easy to understand, and with no surprises that are hidden in the fine print:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081100048.html

I went back to find those polls and try to see and read how they were conducted, other findings, etc. I have noticed a trend that Americans, according to those polls, are fine with their own coverage, but generally acknowledge that the system needs reform, "is broken." According to same Gallup poll, 49% want to maintain the current system, while 41% is for replacing the system for a new one.

The Fox poll...I found to be a mixed poll. There were ten pages of questions, a few were about health care, the rest were mostly about approval ratings of Obama, congress, etc. Also, at least 88% percent (fewer of the democrats had insurance) of those they polled had health insurance. Fox says 51% want government-guaranteed insurance, while CBS says 64% in their polls.

In the Washington post poll, most of those who were polled were insured. Those who weren't insured tended to be more enthusiastic about the reform. Also, according the same poll, American opinion for Public insurance has nearly balanced to a near split.

It seems to me, judging from the polls, Americans are unsure.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1093a3HealthCareReform.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBSPOLL_June09a_health_care.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/072309_poll.pdf
http://www.gallup.com/poll/112813/Americans-Rate-National-Personal-Healthcare-Differently.aspx

I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp that the majority of Americans don't want government run health care, which is definitely where the road will lead with the current bill as it is.

Government run healthcare is where the government runs the GPs, specialists, hospitals, and pharmacies.  Please show me a current proposal that calls for this.  Please don't give me a slippery slope argument because there are plenty of countries who provide health insurance for their citizens without having government run healthcare (in fact, most industrialised nations and even some developing nations). Those countries who do have government run healthcare did not have a period of government run insurance before healthcare was nationalised.  If anything, adopting a public national insurance will probably prevent government run healthcare in the future.

You're simply wrong about this, but it's much easier to argue about what is not going to happen and create boogeymen then to rationally look at what's being proposed, isn't it?

It's very clear that this administration is out of touch with the majority of Americans, since 85% polled are happy with their current healthcare situation.

Since you've supplied the source, please don't miss the fine print:

(Note: The EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey is an online survey of privately insured adults ages 21-64. A traditional private health care plan is defined as a broad range of plan types, including HMOs, PPOs, other managed care plans and plans with a broad variety of cost sharing arrangements as well as no deductible or deductibles that are below current thresholds that would quality for HSA tax preference, and do not have an HRA-based plan.)

What's interesting are polls like this NBC News poll where the respondents initially don't support Obama's healthcare plan, but once it's explained, they do.  Surprised?  No, this is why making this issue as opaque as mud benefits those who benefit from keeping things as they are.

The rest of the polls listed are pretty interesting as well.  To me it shows a public that really doesn't have a grasp on what's going on, just what the opponants of real reform want.

Btw, before blaming 'neo-cons' for everything, realize that the democratic party is split on this, which is the main hurdle in passing this current bill. The democrats don't need the republicans to pass anything while they control the house and senate.

If the public option is dropped, it will be the fault of pressure groups, pandering to ignorance, and conservative pressure, no matter which party they belong.  If the conversation was different, then I would concede that it was about opinion, rational debate, and true concerns about the welfare of the American public.

So let's keep talking about the NHS so that we can avoid talking about what's really at stake here.

Interesting find about Kate Spall and Katie Brickell. They've both been working to get better cancer treatment on the NHS for a while and very critical of the NHS system.

They want more money spent on the NHS, not less.  Not a removal of the system.

They've both been very happy to share their stories in the press long before the US ads, so I would think that they both must have had an idea that these stories would be aired in the US.

So it's totally okay to distort what activists in other countries believe (about a totally unrelated system to what's being proposed I will add, again)?  That makes taking it out of context okay?  Lying to the American public fine?

The CPR doesn't even claim that they weren't deceptive in the use of these and other Brits' stories and interviews.

I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp that the majority of Americans don't want government run health care, which is definitely where the road will lead with the current bill as it is. It's very clear that this administration is out of touch with the majority of Americans, since 85% polled are happy with their current healthcare situation.

Is that 85% of Americans polled who already have healthcare/.  Those weren't the polls that I was seeing last week.