Blogs and Stories
In Defense of 'Socialized Medicine'
)
Dan Kitwood / Getty Images
Obama’s critics blast Britain’s health care as “socialized medicine,” stoking fears about substandard practices, lines, and rationed care. Andrew Neil says Brits are baffled by the distortions.
Far be it for a mere Brit to intrude into the U.S. health-care debate, but after a week in New York watching the arguments unfold on TV, it's clear the opponents of reform are dragging the British National Health Service into their side of the debate with the most outrageous distortions and "porkies" (as in pork pies, i.e. lies!).
When Rudy Giuliani on CNN dismissed our NHS with the claim that "nobody goes to Britain for health care, they all come here if they can," I found myself shouting at the screen: "Hold on, Rudy, it's not as bad as that." Indeed New York's ex-mayor is just plain wrong.
The better off in Britain can still enjoy the best health care that money can buy; but the poor and the middle class know that the cost of their health care is not something they will have to worry about.
London is a world-class medical center to which patients flock from all over the world for state-of-the-art medical procedures. I visited my Harley Street clinic only last week: It was full of foreigners in London for various operations. No doubt they were all pretty affluent. That's also true of the health tourists coming to America. Nor is London the only British center of medical excellence. The great medical university cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Manchester—to name only three—have world-class teaching hospitals and research (Dolly the Sheep was not invented in the Big Apple, Rudy!). The fact is Britain is a world leader in many areas of medical research, including cancer.
The NHS is regularly dismissed by U.S. critics of American reform as "socialized medicine." This is strange to trans-Atlantic ears. Most Brits don't think there's anything "socialist" about the NHS—it enjoys all-party support, including all right-of-center parties. The British Conservatives, who gave the world privatization under Margaret Thatcher, are totally committed to a national health service, tax-funded and free at the point of use (and Mrs. T never challenged these principles either). The parties disagree about how to run it—the Conservatives and the Blairites want less central control, more patient choice, less bureaucratic distribution of resources—but all are agreed on the basic principle behind it.
And that's not just true of Britain. The fact is that all mainstream right-of-center parties across continental Europe regard some kind of national health service covering everybody and largely free at the point of use as not particularly "socialist." There is broad consensus on the left, right and center about this. Most people don't think of it as socialized medicine—just a key feature of a modern, rich, civilized society. When you try to explain this to those opposing a health-care overhaul in America, either they don't believe you or think you're making it up. It is striking just how far apart America's Republicans (and anti-reform Blue Dog Democrats) are from what should be their natural European allies, like the British Conservatives, the French Gaullists, and the German Christian Democrats on this issue.
But enough patriotic outrage. We Brits are under no illusions that our NHS is the last word in health care. We know about the queuing, the bureaucracy, the frustrations of dealing with a producer-led rather than patient-friendly system. But the way it is depicted by Obama's opponents—developing-world medical procedures, endless queuing, no choice of doctors or hospitals, antediluvian facilities, government dictation of health care—is a travesty of the truth. For those whose default position has been to criticize the NHS ourselves, we suddenly become quite defensive.
For a start, the NHS is now full of spanking new hospitals—there are several within a few miles of where I live and I recently visited an amazing new hospital complex in the Midlands. Yes, there are still waiting lists for some procedures, but they are much smaller than before and you don't wait for anything life-threatening. Yes, there are too many bugs to catch if you do end up in an NHS hospital—but that's a problem in the U.S., too.
Of course, nobody in mainstream American politics is proposing a British-style National Health Service or even the sort of compulsory comprehensive insurance systems that exist in Europe. But for America's right, anything that involves a bigger role for government seems to be regarded as "socialized"—and the slippery road to the supposedly clapped out NHS.
The fact is health care on both sides of the Atlantic is rationed: in Britain, it is rationed by queue (though with the billions of pounds thrown at the NHS in recent years the queues are diminishing) and in America by price (no health insurance, no right to health care). Americans might like to ponder that it is better to be in a queue for health care that not qualify for any at all—which is the plight of those 47 million Americans who have no health insurance.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Tony Blair, Outcast
Andrew Neil is a publisher and broadcaster working out of London, New York, Dubai, and the south of France. He is chairman and editor in chief of Press Holdings Media Group, publishers of The Spectator, Spectator Business, and Apollo.
The G-20 Bonus Madness
Andrew Neil is a publisher and broadcaster working out of London, New York, Dubai, and the south of France. He is chairman and editor in chief of Press Holdings Media Group, publishers of The Spectator, Spectator Business, and Apollo.
Terrorist for Sale?
Andrew Neil is a publisher and broadcaster working out of London, New York, Dubai, and the south of France. He is chairman and editor in chief of Press Holdings Media Group, publishers of The Spectator, Spectator Business, and Apollo.
Granite
Thank you!
scotsman
I just left London, a fancy neighborhood at that, where the hospitals were squalid, most of the staff barely spoke English and the equipment was antique. Harley Street is not the NHS, anymore than the MAYO Clinic is what to expect everywhere in the USA.
Getting my children care on the weekends was almost impossible, and the concern/interest of the doctors, unless the children were at death's door, was, at best, casual. One child had a hypothroidism that went undiagnosed despite regular visits to the family GP, until she went to America where a family friend (a doctor) saw her, and urged us to take her immediately to a pediatrician where simple hormone treatments reversed most of the damage.
The system is not perfect in the USA, but many Briton's with their general air of resignation about everything, including long lines and the NHS, simply don't know any better - believe me, US health care is better.
US Government health care? Just look at the Veteran's Hospital's
jlaxmn00
The insurance industry in the US is the only game in town. They have enjoyed record profits for many years and in the effort to maximize profits and be cost effective, people with health issues suffer. The insurance industry is very powerful with an army of lobbyist and millions of dollars contributed to politicians to insure that their interests are looked after. Hence the severe debate here.
As far as the quality of care, it varies here. As with any other system.
jdx60009
To the author:
It's now 52 million Americans who have no health care at all. 5 million
have been added to the roles since job layoffs started last September.
You're looking at a country on edge. You can't have a stable society
when people can't afford Doctors, that's like saying only some of you get
to eat.
flyoverland
I'm pretty sure they are not all "Americans". As part of "reform" we need to start billing Mexico. We'll take payment in oil.
jdx60009
flyoverland
If by "Americans", you mean "citizens" then you are wrong. Those numbers
only take U.S. citizens into account.
flyoverland
You are absolutely wrong. Every estimate says there are between 10 and 20 million illegals in America. This plan will cover them at our expense.
Uncommonsense
Flyover: Illegals will NOT be covered under the plan before Congress. You can state otherwise and say everyone else is wrong, but you are just repeating lies.
jdx60009
flyoverland
The more time I spend reading on this site, the more I become convinced
That those with a Right leaning perspective are truly awful people. It's hard
to imagine being so self-involved and downright greed obsessed and insecure
that you selfishly cling to what you think is yours at the expense of your
society and your country. As long as you think that some money-grubbing,
undeserving and unwashed low-lifes are trying to get their hands on what you
think you so richly deserve, you will never be able to enjoy it yourself. And
maybe that's what you really deserve.
flyoverland
You can call me all the names you want, it does not change the fact that illegal aliens will be covered. You don't know me. You have no idea how charitable I am. I routinely give away over 20% of my income. How much do you liberal give? Probably little or none. You just want to give mine away for me. If illegal aliens are here, they should be covered by their employers. If they are not, when they go to the emergency rooms, as they do, we are all paying the bill and it is simply a transfer of wealth from all of us to those employers who are too cheap to hire Americans in the first place. Mexico is a rich country. It can afford to pay for its own citizens. We need to make them do it. Corruption is not an excuse. That does not mitigate the fact that these plans will provide coverage for anyone in the country whether via the public plan or via free care when they show up. Either way, we pay. Quit pontificating about something that you only understand in generalizations from a President who admits he hasn't even read the bill.
kiwibelle
Wait... so you're totally okay with a human being suffering or dying because they weren't born here? Or because it costs money?
That's cold. Maybe Canada should bill us... quite a few U.S. citizens hop over to get health care with them.
flyoverland
Are you so dense to understand the issue? It isn't about human suffering. It is about people breaking the law. It is about employers not paying for insurance and taking money from everyone else. It is about a country rich in resources that refuses to pay for its own people. If Americans are going to Canada, they should get a bill, not the country. That's not cold. We simply cannot pay for the rest of the world anymore. We sell drugs to China at a fourth of what we charge ourselves and then we borrow money from them. We sell to Western Europe at costs half of what we charge ourselves and prop up their failing socialized systems. Who is going to sell drugs and devices to us at a discount to prop ours up? You don't get it.
AlanD2
flyoverland: There is not any bill finished yet, in either the House of the Senate. So how can you accuse President Obama of not having read it?
AlanD2
flyoverland said: "It isn't about human suffering. It is about people breaking the law."
And you speak as a Christian conservative? What would Jesus say?
oldpunk
Flyoverland is a Christian ??
rickjr82
Actually society will stabilize as soon as all of those people die. Its a waiting game.
al-nafs
Stop! Stop with your reasonableness and logic! Don't you see we're trying to have a class proxy war on the battleground of health care?
This isn't about actually solving our healthcare problems, this is about protecting America from the Un-American parts of America who hate True Americans! We don't really know what this 'socialism' thing really is, but we think its bad.
So there! Nyah!
rickjr82
Terrorist! I see the "al" in front of your name. Don't pretend you don't know what socialism means- all un-american people are card-carrying members.
Saddam Hussein, Hitler and Hannibal the cannibal were all members of the "American" Socialist Party.
sagaderisa
wow...that's just all kinds of special.
Don't worry though, I'm sure that psychiatric health care would also be provided by the public plan, and whatever current plan you're on doesn't provide you with the needed care.
Lol so Hitler the socialist - does this mean that you think that concentration camps were actually just a subsidized housing program? Hannibal "the cannibal" Lector is a fictional character. Saddam Hussein had some state sponsored welfare programs, but also a LOT of repression, which isn't inherent in socialism - unless you think Sweden, Britain, et ALLLL are also heavily repressed societies.
And I'm sorry but ethnicity is beside the point (and if it matters to you, then I probably win, my family's been here since colonial times. Though I suppose Common Sense may be beyond your recognition...).
rickjr82
Whatever, look it up- Saddam was a member of the American Socialist Party.
oldpunk
Hannibal the cannibal? are you one of those strange people that think Sherlock Holmes was real?
overtimegoal
Although the Canadian system is different from the British in structure, the goal is the same. Cover everybody all the time. I have also experienced both systems and agree that, if you can afford it, the US care is the best. But the Canadian system isn't far behind and it is always available to all Canadians regardless of financial circumstance.
It makes for a more mobile and competitive workforce.
Dreamer4Ever
By "mobile and competitive workforce" you mean "a population less trapped in jobs they hate because they can't risk loosing their medical coverage."
Which can only be a good thing.
I've never understood why conservatives are SO SURE gov. would make a royal cluster eff of healthcare. Every other 1st world nation on the planet makes it work. Sure, some systems are better then others and not a single one is completely perfect, but still, more or less they take care of their people.
Are Americans just THAT fundamentally incompetent? What ever happened to American exceptionalism? I thought Conservatives were into that....
connie47
After hearing so many Americans tell us how poor the British system is, it's refreshing to hear about it from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
Thanks for the article and the facts.
mitch77
true that
sophia5
If politicians get to CHOOSE their healthcare.
while We "The People" are FORCED to live with
certain RATIONED healthcare,
that's socialism Mr. Neil.
The United States of America is about "Freedom" to choose.
We are not Britain, Thank God,
though grateful to the Brits for creating this country.
Britain has frightening "Speech" laws that ban foreigners
they deem unacceptable because of their views, yet
the Brits allow Muslim Extremists to verbally threaten
England, on the streets of England.
How twisted is your system?
Oh, and you have courts in your country now that recognize Sharia Law?
Man, is Britain screwed?
Unfortunately we are now experiencing a U.S. government that
would like to take us back in time where government has too much power,
including controlling our healthcare system, FORCING
Americans with healthcare, government bureaucrats deem acceptable.
Sadly, healthcare is so expensive here because of an obese population,
free treatment for 15 million people who are here illegally, trial lawyer
lawsuits, insurance fees,
subsidizing the low cost of American pharmaceuticals sold
overseas,
while Americans pay outrageous bills,
for the best medical technology in the world.
That's why many foreign heads of state come here for medical treatment.
Unfortunately, for much of the American population
the costs are outrageous.
There's got to be some kind of compromise.
Socialized, No Thanks.
cookiecrumb
@sophia5
Your distorted understanding of facts and the arguments at hand is breathtaking bordering on absurd. You talk about life and laws in the UK but give the impression that you've never left some backwater hamlet in the United States let alone travelled, read widely and have a genuine worldview. Instead you regurgitate a litany of lies, half truths and utter drivel gleaned from the likes of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, special interest funded commercials etc...
stagamancer
"If politicians get to CHOOSE their healthcare.
while We "The People" are FORCED to live with
certain RATIONED healthcare,
that's socialism Mr. Neil."
If you currently have a job, you don't get to CHOOSE your healthcare either. Your employer does. You are FORCED to get the care that your employer can afford, and you are FORCED to get see the doctors and go to the pharmacies that healthcare plan allows. You think health care isn't RATIONED now? Try getting care if you have a pre-existing condition. Rationing healthcare means the state will not pay for superfluous or non-proven treatments. You can still get them, but you'll have to pay for them. How is this any different from what exists now?
FreeDem
The American Health System has no "freedom to choose". If you are lucky enough to have care at all, it is the employer that chose it. And you cannot just "choose" a doctor except from the limited list your insurance company got the best bargain (for them ) from. Even then there is an insurance company bureaucrat to second guess your doctors every decision. In Obama's plan you can even stay with what was chosen by your employer, even if you leave the employer.
For those with the Government plan there will be a card tied to your medical background. An illegal immigrant would not have one and a fake one would not have the correct info (very dangerous) so even though there is a lot less care of illegal immigrants that wingers suppose, there would be less with a government plan. Your congress critter is of course very happy with their Government Plan.
AlanD2
sophia5 said: "The United States of America is about "Freedom" to choose."
People without insurance, who are almost all poor, have no freedom to choose.
People with pre-existing conditions have no freedom to choose.
People whose insurance is provided by their employers have no freedom to choose.
People whose insurance companies deny their claims have no freedom to choose.
People whose insurance companies drop their policies because they are "too sick" have no freedom to choose.
And you say the United States of America is about "Freedom" to choose?
Get real, and stop watching Fox News.
sophia5
@cookiecrumb
You want facts.
Here you go cookie.
Sharia Law In England.
From the Times Of London, September 14, 2008
Here's the Link if you don't believe it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
Article by Abul Taher
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network's headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
Siddiqi said: "We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are."
oldpunk
How is the no tax thing you fought Britain over going?
oldpunk
@sophia5
What has Sharia Law In England got to do with health care , this is about freedom of speech and freedom of religion.Nothing to do with Health Care.
Those who waive flags saying " My country is the best in the world " are usually the ones that have never been anywhere to know.
djshagadellic
Wow, actual reasoned analysis! Mr. Neil I've never had occasion to use the British NHS but several close family friends living in England both use and are employed by NHS. Everything I've ever heard about it from them is consistent with your piece. Too often on this side of the pond we lose sight of the overall picture and instead only focus on relatively insignificant details. The fact that NHS is a wonderful system is not diametrically opposed to the fact that it, just like any other, has room for improvement. When there are few bumps in a road, few advocate the destruction of the road. The logical step is to fix the bumps. Of course many of us have a tenuous relationship with logic as it relates to our own best interests.
jbo206
Well said Neil,
But you have a couple of strikes against you. You're talking to social conservatives. Facts and data or getting input from populations who have a slightly similar health care system are for smarty pants. Any valid points to be had are lost amid all the partisanship (your porkies) and the goal of "breaking" the current administration.
This past administration had eight years to improve health care costs. Under their watch insurance companies began pulling in their highest returns in recent history and the brunt of cost increases were bore by businesses and the average American.
Which brings me to the last strike, you have not shown your birth certificate and you have a funny accent (meaning you're an evil foreigner), which is all the excuse needed to tune you out.
Picachu
Shocking! The right wingers distorting the truth. Tell me it ain't so!!! How can those godly and god fearing people do something like that. Why then that would be a lie, and that would make them hypocrites. That can't be!
Beauzeaux
I am an American citizen living in Canada. I am completely happy with the medical care I get here for $96 per month (for two people). A year ago, my very sharp primary doc diagnosed me with a problem before I was even aware of it. Then last fall I had reconstructive surgery done on my foot by a first-rate orthopod. (The problem had been misdiagnosed in the US.)
Even if I wanted to return to the US, I couldn't afford it. Our skimpy medical insurance in the US was $900 a month back in 2004.
socialworklady
Hey Beau,
I hear from lots of American expats living in Canada that the cost of health care keeps them from returning to the U.S. They are just too afraid of getting sick in the states.
tammydownunder
It keeps us in Australia too. Not having to worry about our health coverage allows us to live our career dream and not some crappy job that has coverage.
The government only funds our health care system. The doctors are in charge of the medical end of things. Unlike the US, we can never be denied coverage because of a "preexisting condidtion".
Skipper58
It really pisses me off to hear American pols slag the Cdn health care system. When I hear some ignorant redneck rep from Texas call my system "a piece of crap" it makes my blood boil. We live longer, live better, are better educated, more compassionate, more outward looking and all round a better place to live than the US. Perhaps the next war you wage will be a war on ignorance. Good luck with that.
pricklypear
You have to wait 18 weeks to get a knee replacement.
You have to wait and wait to see a specialist to begin to get a diagnosis. If it is cancer, that is time you don't have. It is frightening.
Many Canadians come to the states to get treatment by our outstanding cancer treatment hospitals. Not all provinces allow doctors to prescribe the most current cancer fighting drugs.
My mother was told by her doctor that she was wasting the (Canadian) government's money when she sought medical attention. She is 81 years old. She switched doctors.
Philip2
Finally, an stubbornly ignorant comment! For a while, I thought this article was destined to be the first I'd ever read without stupid generalizations from the right. pPicklypear, did you even bother to read the article? Or do you think the man is just lying, like the President apparently does all the time?
I know, I know: It's just so much easier to win an argument by saying someone is just making stuff up (when you yourself are the one doing that). Like that awkward birth certificate and those planted birth announcements planted in that Hawaiian paper 48 years ago.
Pierce
That's simply not true. I'm a Canadian, don't tell me how my system works. When I needed elective eye surgery, I had to wait all of 8 days.
My grandfather (a man in his seventies) was diagnosed with prostate cancer after having it for all of 2 weeks. He wasn't even symptomatic. His treatment started 4 days later. There were no delays in his treatment time line.
Are there problems with our system? Yes. Would I ever, under any circumstances trade it for the American system? Never. Not in a million years. Period. You'll rarely, if ever, hear a Canadian say otherwise.
ciwiuk
Nonsense! I'm a Canadian who has lived in Canada, the U.S., and now live in Europe, and the worst of the three systems is by far the U.S. system from my experience. I've never had to wait in lines in Canada or Europe that were any longer than the lines I had to wait in in the U.S.
AlanD2
pricklypear said: "You have to wait 18 weeks to get a knee replacement."
In the U.S., if you are poor and uninsured, you will have to wait forever to get a knee replacement.
Actually, I lied. Once you reach 65, you are eligible for Medicare, that evil, government-sponsored, socialist medical program. You will finally be able to get your knee fixed, though you might have to wait a while.
FreelanceMinion
You sound like you are describing what it is like under an American health insurance policy. My wife once was prescribed to take an MRI but the place the insurance company used was backed up and she had to go a week after she was feeling bad. Now we are on the edge of being able to afford any insurance so I guess we wouldn't have that dilemma, or the MRI.
The anti-health reform argument seems to be "I have good care now, don't rock the boat," but as more people get their own stories to make your above examples look good, fewer people will be scared.
pricklypear
The cure for breast cancer in the U.S. is 83%. The cure for breast cancer in the U.K. is 73%. The screening is free there, which is great! But once you are diagnosed the doctor's hands are tied by the ability to treat the cancer in a timely and personalized way. Too much red tape. Their system has some good features but also bad features which they need to work on.
Bottom line, we need to work together to see what parts need to be implemented. Obama wants to ruin our system and start from scratch. He is a revolutionary and reckless.
Roots12
I read this article last year about this very topic for anyone who is interested in getting some facts about Canadian health care vs. the myths.
In a report on worldwide cancer survival rates, Canada ranked near the top of the 31 countries studied with an estimate five-year survival rate of 82.5 per cent.
For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.
Here's the link
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_stat istics_080716/20080716/
pricklypear
There is no such thing as free health care.
bgeasyas123
but there is such a thing as affordable healthcare
jdx60009
And there is such a thing as access.
AlanD2
pricklypear: "There is no such thing as free health care."
The 22,000 uninsured people who die each year in the U.S. would certainly agree with you.
AlanD2
pricklypear: Our medical system is already ruined, and has been for many years. The insurance, medical, and pharmaceutical industries have seen to that.
The only question is whether or not these industries, which are spending ten million dollars a week on lobbying, can overcome the efforts by Obama to make the system useful to ordinary people.
FreelanceMinion
Great, so we'll take the beast ideas from Britain and not take the weakest. Since neither Obama or any other Democrat are considering taking over providers, we are on that path.
Once again, please tell me, what is the breast cancer survival rate for someone WITHOUT insurance? And how many insurance companies will cover and treat your cancer if you have ANY history of cancer before they covered you?
Our system has holes like swiss cheese.
TheCommons
The health care debate in this country proves you can fool most of the people most of the time and that's plenty good enough for the GOP and the insurance industry.
flyoverland
I ran a number of companies in the UK. You could not get any quality employees to work for you without providing private healthcare coverage. The only reason the NHS works, even badly, is because 40% of the country buys private care. NHS is the system that recently told macular degeneration patients it would only treat one eye and they could go blind in the other.
jdx60009
flyoverland
Americans with no health care go blind in both eyes. ERs do not treat
macular degeneration.
socialworklady
Right.
And it sounds like treating folks without health care at the ER for colds and sore throats and what not is costing you guys a mint. Doesn't make any sense from this person from an "non exceptional" country :)
Also of note: There are two kinds of macular degeneration -- dry and wet. Dry macular degeneration accounts for 90% of all cases of Age Related Macular Degeneration.
There is, no treatment for dry macular degeneration. British scientists are working on getting human clinical trials with embryonic stem cells up and running within the next two years.
http://tinyurl.com/d25k9s
There is a treatment for wet macular degeneration. It involves laser therapy and is appropriate for SOME cases.
http://tinyurl.com/5gnl
flyoverland is correct that HNS has come out with some strange policy of only treating one eye for wet macular degeneration, but I don't remember the details from the article. Maybe, fly will post the link....
It is a bizarre policy and not an appropriate or compassionate standard of care. I hope British citizens are raising bloody hell about it! I know I would do some "community organizing" here if we were faced with such a thing.
From my perspective, citing this one absurd example, (which will hopefully soon be remedied) as a reason to kill your health care reform process is mere demagoguery and fear mongering.
I would not be fooled by it. Do your own research. Those who are well off and have good health care obviously have an investment in maintaining the status quo.
flyoverland -- as a former international business man, is that you?
pricklypear
My mother-in-law has the best health care possible and she is legally blind from macular degeneration. She had a series of state-of-the-art injections into her eye ball at $2000.00 per injection to no avail. I guess there is not a cure for old age, yet. You won't see leading edge medicine coming out of Canada or Cuba, THAT's for sure.
cookiecrumb
Really flyoverland, where are you getting your statistics from, please cit ethe source with a link!
I doubt the veracity of any part of your statement - judging by the general absurdity of many of your remarks on DB I seriously doubt you ran a number of companies in the UK.
socialworklady
Words You Won't Hear in Canadian Health Care
1. Out of network
2. COBRA
3. Co-Pay
4. Monthly premium/deductible
5. Waiting for approval
6. Government interference
7.Health insurance lobby
8. Bureaucracy
9. PRE-EXISTING CONDITION
10. recission
11. individual rates
12. ininsurable
13. profit
http://tinyurl.com/krs8yh
socialworklady
#12. Should read: UNINSURABLE
No you will never hear that. There is no one who is uninsurable. NO ONE.
rickjr82
they might be insurable, but it might not be possible to pay for it.
pricklypear
14. There is a new drug we can try.
socialworklady
prickly,
You're saying, Canadian docs don't have access to "new" drugs?! I know you get a little wacky in the evenings, but you REALLY believe that?
pricklypear
Things you do hear under Canadian health care.
1. You are too old, you are wasting government money.
2. You haven't suffered long enough.
3. You aren't sick enough yet.
4. We can schedule you for an appointment 3 months from now.
5. This Provence has not approved the use of that new cancer drug.
5. All patients are prescribed this treatment for your illness. No exceptions.
6. Coronary Stents , though less invasive are expensive. We only do by-pass operations.
7. (from doctor) "My hands are tied. You will have to wait for approval".
socialworklady
Prickly,
Huh?!
You're basing this on what? GOP talking points -- stuff fed to them by the insurance industry to whom they are indebted. Go figure.
Just so you know. It's pure bullsh*t. Unadulterated bullsh*t. Total crap.
I have lived in Canada all my life. I have lots of relatives, a large family, a wide circle of friends, clients, and many colleagues. Except for #3, I have never, personally heard any of these statements, nor have I heard anyone I know tell me they have experienced what you have listed.
Yes, there can be wait times to see a specialist, if the situation is not life threatening. And I have heard of wait times for elective surgeries. This is mainly due to a shortage of doctors. If your need for surgery is urgent, you get in right away. (I know, because I have had the experience). And there is no out of pocket cost to you for anything. Not for the surgery. Not for follow up. Not for visits to the doctor.
Now. Don't bother telling me that there are no wait times in the U.S. There are. And if you want, I will go and get the stories and post them here.
I could debunk each of your laughable claims one by one, and give you citations to back up my statements, but it would take up too much of my time.
Let me just say. Don't be such a gullible goose, prickly. Learn to think for yourself. Women do that these days.
socialworklady
Prickly,
Re: #5. "Provence," is a region of southeastern France on the Mediterranean adjacent to Italy.
For information about Canadian "provinces" see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada
If you're going to make specious claims, at least try to get the most basic things right so .... oh never mind.
Pierce
There is NO approval process! I'm a bloody Canadian doctor, I'd know if there was one. If one of my patients needs something, I simply sign the form, and give them the address to the nearest hospital to have the procedure done!
Need an MRI? No problem, go here and give them this slip.
Need an X-Ray? No problem, go here and give them this slip.
Need a blood panel done? No problem, go here and give them this slip.
I never have to talk to an insurer, an administrator or anyone other than my patient and maybe the lab tech to make sure I get back the information I need.
Want to know how many of my patients have been denied approval for any medical procedure? Zero. Not a single one. Ever.
If you hear anything other than that, it's complete and udder BS.
socialworklady
Typo Alert.
Change to read: "Except for #4, I have never personally heard any of these statements, nor have I heard anyone I know tell me they have experienced what you have listed."
(#4 being a wait for some non-elective surguries)
agb90spruce
Except possibly #4 ... garbage. I'll not debunk all of these ... some are so stupid I won't bother, while others have already been refuted by others, but on two of them:
#1 .. My mother had no problem getting a knee transplant at 92, so there is obviously no absolute age prohibition. The main criteria for her were whether she was judged up to the operation and rehabilitation, and whether it would improve her quality of life. It certainly did and she's still walking on it at almost 94.
#5 ... there is no provincial "approval" for new drugs ... that is a federal responsibility (Health Canada ... just as FDA "approves" drugs (and medical devices) in the US). Provinces do maintain lists of drugs they will pay for but the list changes fairly quickly to reflect new developments. Furthermore, any doctor can obtain access to drugs not available for sale in Canada via the Special Access Programme run by Health Canada.
See: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/acces/drugs-drogues/index-eng.php
Here's a quote: "The Special Access Programme (SAP) provides access to nonmarketed drugs for practitioners treating patients with serious or life-threatening conditions when conventional therapies have failed, are unsuitable, or unavailable. The SAP authorizes a manufacturer to sell a drug that cannot otherwise be sold or distributed in Canada. Drugs considered for release by the SAP include pharmaceutical, biologic, and radio-pharmaceutical products not approved for sale in Canada."
#6 ... Then why are Cardiovascular Stents a worthy topic for a guidance document on requirements for licensing in Canada? See: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/md-im/applic-demande/guide-ld/stents_nues-en g.php
bcaldwell
Hey Pierce, why don't you move to the states and open up a practice, you'll make more money. Actually I read from socialworklady and others who decry profit in a healthcare system as if health care and profit are mutually exclusive. Profit is noble and necessary. Profit is the reward you get for providing something beneficial to society that improves lives. Pharmaceutical companies come to mind, without them we'd really be up a creek.
Doctors deserve to make money, something you Canucks seem to think is bad because you don't pay your doctors what they are worth - I personally know many Canadian doctors that now practice in the States. Insurance companies deserve to make money, they have helped millions of people through employer and individual plans defray the actual cost of healthcare. Are there instances- too many where care is denied, yes. Could there be better ways of handling the bill so thatpeopele who have catastrophic illnesses are not forced into bankruptcy-yes.
But the fundamental objection I have and many conservatives that think, is that a universal system gives government an additional potential avenue of control over your life. Also, the government does not particularly enjoy competition for its services either. Government can write the rules for its favor and government does not need to make a profit either - or even break even. Clinton lucked out on the budget surpluses, because his policies were not really any different from Bush I.
As to Britain, if I had a choice on the Continent as to where I would get treatment....it would not be Britain. Germany and Switzerland are far superior and less socialized. If there was a choice between Britain and Canada, I'd chose Canada because if they piss me off, I can easily go to places like Seattle, Buffalo or Detroit and get real care.
FreeDem
Those are all things you will hear in the US. Except #1, Insurance companies don't care how old you are, if they can deny you coverage they will do it. They also don't care where you are from.
I have even personally been hit by #5. There is no argument against a national health care system that is not worse in the American system, but the American system has many not found in a national system.
FreelanceMinion
You know, the Canadians on this board don't seem to say those things. But American health insurance companies DO love to say all those things to people who have paid their premium regularly.
dana64
BRAVO...............Obama should come out and say I MADE A MISTAKE...............I should not have said ............IT MUST BE DEFICIT NEUTRAL...........
THAT should have been said Before GOING into IRAQ.........
how come we always have money for WARS ???
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.