US Adverts on National Healthcare

This story made me laugh and is indicative of a lot of the nonsense spewed out about "socialized medicine" in the US:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/erica/2009/08/stephen-hawking-likes-his-deat.php?ref=recdc

In summary the original editorial stated "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Oops...

This story made me laugh and is indicative of a lot of the nonsense spewed out about "socialized medicine" in the US:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/erica/2009/08/stephen-hawking-likes-his-deat.php?ref=recdc

In summary the original editorial stated "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Oops...

You couldn't make it up..........except people do!

There are elements of truth in these stories though, even if some are exaggerated.

There are cases where the NHS in some areas is refusing to provide certain treatments for certain illnesses on the grounds that it's "too expensive" (although strangely enough they seem to be able to find money for things for which the NHS was never intended). 

And what about the way successive governments have kept eliminating things which were supposedly covered?   Many older people paid National Insurance for decades on the understanding that it would provide for all their essential medical care, including such things as dentists and opticians, yet now they have reached the point in their lives when they need those things they're told that they're no longer covered and they have to pay again.  Any private insurance company would be in breach of contract for trying that.

There are cases where the NHS in some areas is refusing to provide certain treatments for certain illnesses on the grounds that it's "too expensive" (although strangely enough they seem to be able to find money for things for which the NHS was never intended). 

Agreed, just as there are cases where insurance companies in the US refuse treatments too. Not to mention the travails of the uninsured and underinsureds... Which is why a lot of these US comments on the NHS are so frustrating. Surely it shouldn't be asking too much that they are factually accurate and that they don't make the claim that the NHS rations care whereas the US system does not?

This story made me laugh and is indicative of a lot of the nonsense spewed out about "socialized medicine" in the US:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/erica/2009/08/stephen-hawking-likes-his-deat.php?ref=recdc

In summary the original editorial stated "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."


I notice the amended editorial says "This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK". Doesn't say that eveything else they stated was obviously completely fabricated. Perhaps they were fooled by his American accent  ?
From my experience dealing with the health, education and social care systems on both sides of the Atlantic I would say that, unless his family had money, he would have struggled to have achieved what he has done if he if he was born in the US.

An interesting comment from the blog of an ex-pat now back in the US.

"I also realise with hindsight that a lot of what I held against the NHS had nothing to do with the system itself and actually were issues that could happen in any system.  I blamed the whole system when the loo in my local doctor’s office or hospital wasn’t clean enough.  I blamed the whole system when the only space I could find at the hospital carpark was miles away in the very furthest corner.  I blamed the whole system when the doctors’ receptionist was grumpy or I didn’t much like my doctor’s manner (or his diagnosis).  But the truth was that I believed in the healthcare system I had grown up in and I didn’t like the idea of socialised medicine — I didn’t like socialised anything — so I saw problems with it where-ever I chose to look.  And I held onto that belief right up until I arrived back in the United States, and discovered that grumpy receptionists and dirty hospital bathrooms and annoying carparks can happen in any system — because they have nothing to do with the system itself.  They’re management issues, human nature issues, and they happen everywhere.  And a lot of the fear that Americans have about change in their healthcare actually center around these kind of issues that have nothing to do with the system itself, be it socialised or for-profit."

I wonder just how many British people would actually trade the system here for the system in the US.  I was under the understanding that there is more than just "broad" political support for the NHS in principal.  I've also heard of remorse from some of the British people who have participated in the anti-socialised medicine "documentaries" and commercials. Many didn't realise their complaints about one aspect (for example, cancer care) would be used to justify totally avoiding any sort of government healthcare.  Most said they wouldn't want to live under the US system.

I wonder how many Canadians (the system most similar to what we may end up with in the States) would trade theirs for the US system.  Sure, border hopping happens, but when it gets down to it, would they actually trade?

BTW, HME, that is a very good point.  When I had some of the best insurance available in the States, I waited a long time for certain appointments.  No one calls it a waiting list when it's not nationalised health care or insurance, even though in essence it is.  Even if I was paying cash, out of pocket, I couldn't have jumped the queue.

ETA: I am not saying, of course, NHS or the nationalised health insurance in Canada is perfect.  For example NHS dentistry is utter crap and should either be fixed or dropped.  It's a joke and reflects poorly upon the whole system.

Thank you for posting that HME--I really like that perspective.

Legs, that was an excellent post.  It's something I've thought a lot too.  The NHS most certainly has its faults, but I've never come across someone who would prefer to scrap the NHS altogether and adopt the US system.  In my experience, people I've come across here who have issues with aspects of the NHS would want those aspects improved to make the NHS as a whole better.  I've never once heard someone suggest that it should be done away with.

They're discussing this right now on Radio 2. They played a clip of an anti-NHS ad from the US that really made my blood boil. 

And what about the way successive governments have kept eliminating things which were supposedly covered?   Many older people paid National Insurance for decades on the understanding that it would provide for all their essential medical care, including such things as dentists and opticians, yet now they have reached the point in their lives when they need those things they're told that they're no longer covered and they have to pay again.

I agree that the dental system needs reforming (in fact I'd personally drop dental altogether if it were up to me because I'm not convinced there's any way to offer quality treatment with limited funding and personally I'd rather pay £60 for an occaisional filling rather than have money for dentistry siphoned off of medical budgets, but I digress). Optical care is really not too bad. Sight tests are free if you're over 60 or meet quite a few other criteria and people who truly need financial assistance with glasses or contacts get it.

Legs, that was an excellent post.  It's something I've thought a lot too.  The NHS most certainly has its faults, but I've never come across someone who would prefer to scrap the NHS altogether and adopt the US system.  In my experience, people I've come across here who have issues with aspects of the NHS would want those aspects improved to make the NHS as a whole better.  I've never once heard someone suggest that it should be done away with.

And what doesn't get reported on in the US, is whenever people do criticise the NHS here their solution is that more public money should be invested in it.

So why does it contain clauses to prohibit people from taking out or renewing existing private coverage?

I've been slowly reading through the bill and haven't come across this yet at all. I've seen clauses that prohibit private coverage that does not meet the minimum standards of healthcare (which I haven't gotten to yet). Basically, it looks like this (so far I've only covered 100 pages or so):
(1) The 'public option': a government-run healthcare plan with different package levels (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) that is available strictly through the 'Health Insurance Exchange' gateway. It'll be (for practical purposes here) like any other plan offered through this HIE.
(2) The HIE gateway is a virtual shopping mall of health plans that private companies can jump in on. A company must offer the basic 'bronze' package (they use other terms for the package levels, but I'm sticking with metal). Every company that offers this package will offer the exact same thing; the differences here will be (potentially) {a} cost and {b} in-network/out-of-network offerings (§114 IIRC). Companies can offer the better levels in succession (i.e. they can't offer the platinum without the others first). Platinum-level packages have the added bonus of offering optional benefits (free basket woven underwater after the fifth child born, whatever). Lastly, all plans offered through this HIE are urged to use copayments instead of coinsurance (i.e. everything is a set amount rather than a percentage). The out-of-pocket deductible for any plan here is limited to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family.
(3) Private insurance companies can also offer plans outside of the HIE as long as they meet the bronze-level requirements (§121).

There's some more details and such that I've run through, but it doesn't look like any of it relates to these options in any significant way. But don't worry, there's some potentially bad things in the bill as well, especially for insurance companies (e.g. basically there is a set limit to how much they can profit annually).

Impleri, thanks for your information but question, where did you get a copy of the bill? Is it online? If so, can you post the link?

I would really like to read it too.

The whole thing is on OpenCongress (HR 3200). There is also a Republican bill that proposes its own reforms (SR 1099), but I haven't looked at it yet (and it is significantly smaller--only 250 pages).