US Adverts on National Healthcare

Thanks for the links!

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).

Personally I don't see that as a bad thing.

Health insurance executives are raking in bonuses equal to some of those paid in the big banking houses - the bonuses that caught the US public's attention last fall when the market crashed.  One of the largest executive buyouts ever paid to a US executive was to the outgoing CEO of United Healthcare.  Odd especially given the fact that United is ranked as one of the worst health insurers in the US.

Personally I don't see that as a bad thing.

To an extent, I agree with you. However, I'm worried more about our government abusing that and screwing things up royally more so than whatever limit may be placed on profits.

This made me giggle so hard I snorted this morning.... Forwarded to me by a colleague but the source is NHS Networks (www.networks.nhs.uk)

Don’t attack the NHS – that’s our job   
* * * An open letter to the President of the United States * * *

Dear Mr Obama,

On behalf of the NHS may we thank you and the American people for the debate you have started about the relative merits of the health systems on either side of the Atlantic?

Thank you, in particular, for dislodging swine flu from the top of the news agenda for a few days. Frankly it has been boring most of us to tears for weeks.

In Britain, we have a silly season every August during which journalists are obliged to scrape the barrel for stories. Thanks to your rather vague policy announcement and the furore it has caused, they will be spared the trouble.

You will have noticed tempers running high on all sides of this debate. That is because there is nothing that excites the public quite as much as the issue of health. People care about the economy, the environment and foreign affairs, but if it’s sheer passion you’re after, you can’t beat a story about a postcode lottery for cancer drugs, patients doing DIY dental work with a pair of Mole-grips or the closure of a cottage hospital.

No doubt you were surprised or even shocked at the reaction of your fellow Americans and their quaint misconceptions about the NHS. That most moderate and sensible of politicians, Sarah Palin, decried the NHS model as ‘downright evil’. The BBC reported on a town hall meeting in Maryland where some people bore placards depicting you with a toothbrush moustache of the kind favoured by the mid 20th century health reformer Adolf Hitler.

One man pointed out that the Nazis had started in a similar fashion, and that their agenda soon moved from health reforms to the annexation of Poland and the invasion of Europe. While we doubt this is your direction of travel it’s only fair to mention that it didn’t turn out to be a vote winner for the Third Reich.

May we particularly congratulate the Investors Business Daily which made the bizarre claim that ‘people such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless’ -- a claim only undermined by the facts that Professor Hawking is a) British and b) alive.

The point is that if you want to whip up the British public into a state of concentrated outrage, you can’t do better than to attack one of our national treasures. And if you really want to make them mad, pick on one in a wheelchair.

Similarly, nothing could be calculated to rally support behind the NHS like an attack by a bunch of ill-informed foreigners. Americans are making a big mistake if they think that we allow just anyone to criticise the NHS. That’s a right we reserve for ourselves and frankly, Mr President, we get pretty peeved when anyone tries to take it away from us.

Politicians of all hues would also like to express their gratitude to the American people for giving them the opportunity to make heartfelt political capital from the situation. Our prime minister, his wife, the leader of the opposition, the health secretary and his Tory shadow have all posted robust messages support for the NHS on Twitter. There is palpable relief that the media spotlight has swung away from expenses scandals and the dire state of the public finances. So, thanks again.

The US health budget is $2.5 trillion – which if you are not familiar with really big numbers is 2,500 billion. Analyse the figures and you will see that the per capita cost of healthcare in the US is roughly twice that of the UK. It may rise a bit higher if you exclude the millions of Americans without health insurance. You may also be aware that in a report from the World Health Organisation about preventable deaths from health interventions the US came twentieth in a league table of 20 countries.

We can see therefore why you might feel that it’s worth making a few changes. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, please feel free to encourage Americans to continue to make invidious and inaccurate comparisons between your system and the NHS. It’s having a tremendously positive effect on our morale.

Yours faithfully

The National Health Service*

* For readers suffering for conditions affecting the sense of humour, we should point out that this letter is not officially endorsed by the staff or leadership of the NHS.

 

ETA:

The US health budget is $2.5 trillion – which if you are not familiar with really big numbers is 2,500 billion. Analyse the figures and you will see that the per capita cost of healthcare in the US is roughly twice that of the UK.

Actually, according to yesterday's Times, it's quite a bit more than double that of the UK. They say per capita spending in the US is $7290, while in the UK it's $2992.

Source: http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/tthhighpriceofhealth.pdf

The ex-pat blog from which I quoted previously has provoked a huge number of comments, which you can see at:

http://potentialandexpectations.wordpress.com/

I just saw a blurb quickly on TV about someone high in the Tory leadership on US TV saying he "wouldn't wish the UK system on anyone."  Of course, he explained it away domestically because we wouldn't want the public, who overwhelmingly support the NHS, to think the Conservatives are anti-NHS.

But this raises the question, why are people, especially politicians, from countries with nationalised insurance and healthcare speaking out against public funded healthcare in the States?  Could it be that a public system in the States would mean more expenses for other countries?

When we watched "Sicko", I was in tears when they showed that woman that they paid the cab to drop off in the middle of the city because she couldn't pay for treatment.  My husband asked what particularly upset me about that (he found the whole film a bit upsetting).  I explained that our system, one that still allows for uninsured consumers, helps subsidise the cost of care not only for people with insurance in the States (out of pocket payers subsidise insured payers and the treatment that is given to those who can't pay), but for drug treatments for the rest of the world.  If you paid for your medicines, which I did for years, you were not paying what insurance companies had to pay or what governments like the UK had to pay. The fact that woman would not get treated helped insure that the French guy, who likely needed pharmaceuticals,  could be treated effectively.  Of course, if you paid for any treatment whatsoever, you were subsidising the insured and the uninsured, but I don't think it translates to international subsidies, but I could be wrong.

I am beginning to believe it's not just drug companies and insurance companies that want to keep the US using the same system it has now.

ETA: I guess it was an MEP.  I just caught the blurb and couldn't find anything on Google news about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6023293/Daniel-Hannan-rebuked-by-Conservative-leadership-for-attacking-NHS.html

EDIT2: And another Tory MEP:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090814/thl-second-conservative-mep-attacks-nhs-d831572.html

I believe there is some dispute about the claim that high US drug prices pay for innovation and that others are freeloading off them. Certainly there are large pharmaceutical companies and research labs outside the US - and if US drug companies are prepared to give the UK cheaper drugs because the NHS is a tough negotiator, that's surely their decision. They still make profits, even in Europe...

Where the drugs are developed is irrelevant to what I am talking about. Nor did I claim that the high price US consumers pay goes to innovation.  I sincerely doubt that the drug companies' (including non-US companies) taste for high profits is going to disappear if the US gets nationalised insurance.

And I am not being critical of the NHS or other governments for negotiating lower prices.  What I am saying is that some might view the US removing the out of pocket payers, particularly for drugs, as driving their costs up.  What I find objectionable are politicians from other countries who have nationalised healthcare/insurance trying to prevent the US from going single payer.

I believe there is some dispute about the claim that high US drug prices pay for innovation and that others are freeloading off them. Certainly there are large pharmaceutical companies and research labs outside the US - and if US drug companies are prepared to give the UK cheaper drugs because the NHS is a tough negotiator, that's surely their decision. They still make profits, even in Europe...

NHS pays less than Medicare not because NHS has some super ultra special negotiating ninja skills, but because by law Medicare is not allowed to leverage its purchasing power to negotiate drug prices.

So you may believe whatever you like, but Lady A is right -- high drug prices in the US subsidize lower drug prices in the rest of the world.

ETA: And as NHS is the majority (if not almost the only) purchaser of drugs in the UK, it's not so much "negotiating" as setting price controls. Which is fine, in my opinion, but let's call a spade a spade here.

The current system in America is really bad.  But I think this proposed health care reform is going in the wrong direction to solve it.  The reason why health care costs are so high is because of government regulation.   There was affordable health care in the 1960s, but since then you have had loads of regulations passed by the federal government and many state governments.  Health care costs have dramatically risen since then and insurance companies have benefited immensely from this.

What do I envision for America?  A private, deregulated health care system, where costs are so low patients won't require health insurance.

Do I think this proposed health care reform will pass in one form or another?  Yes.  The general consensus is either in favor of the status quo or universal health care.  I think the latter will gain more popularity and will triumph in the end.

What I find objectionable are politicians from other countries who have nationalised healthcare/insurance trying to prevent the US from going single payer.

And what I find objectionable is the media and the republicans in the US slamming our health service and telling downright lies just to further their own agenda.
I don't think, generally, any foreign politicians are trying to prevent the US changing, it seems to be more on the inside you need to look.
This was one very right-wing MEP who had been on Fox before, he's certainly done his political career no favours whatsoever with what he said. I've emailed David Cameron and asked him to consider doing an interview on Fox.

The current system in America is really bad.  But I think this proposed health care reform is going in the wrong direction to solve it.  The reason why health care costs are so high is because of government regulation.   There was affordable health care in the 1960s, but since then you have had loads of regulations passed by the federal government and many state governments.  Health care costs have dramatically risen since then and insurance companies have benefited immensely from this.

What do I envision for America?  A private, deregulated health care system, where costs are so low patients won't require health insurance.

Do I think this proposed health care reform will pass in one form or another?  Yes.  The general consensus is either in favor of the status quo or universal health care.  I think the latter will gain more popularity and will triumph in the end.

You want a deregulated system - certainly worked for the banks didn't it?!

You want a deregulated system - certainly worked for the banks didn't it?!

Agree. If the US system was less regulated it would be even worse. The insurance companies would get away with a lot more than they already do (which is too much as it is).

One reason why things were better in the 60s/70s is while they wanted to make money, the "corporate greed" factor was there back then.

Back in the day, you received free health insurance coverage via your employer (for the entire family) and kept it even when you retired. Retiree benefits from private employers ended many years ago for most people and as we know having insurance through your employer is no longer free.

And what I find objectionable is the media and the republicans in the US slamming our health service and telling downright lies just to further their own agenda.
I don't think, generally, any foreign politicians are trying to prevent the US changing, it seems to be more on the inside you need to look.
This was one very right-wing MEP who had been on Fox before, he's certainly done his political career no favours whatsoever with what he said. I've emailed David Cameron and asked him to consider doing an interview on Fox.

Oh, the Republicans and the media are the worst, but interference by politicians and political groups outside the US (it's more than one MEP, and I don't think they are acting independently either) is out of line.  It smacks of a conflict of interest when politicians from countries who stand to benefit from keeping the US using their current system try to influence public opinion in the States.