178 Comments

1. Hayek:

So, exceptions are now the rule?

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:19 am 2. lee:

I’d be treated just as well in the United States if I had the same disease, although insurance and high cost might be an issue.

I have cousins who live in Korea who genuinely like their universal healthcare, (20-50 bucks for a MRI!) although they recall horror stories for patients who are seriuosly ill.

This country is probably headed towards universal healthcare. I’m not totally opposed to it, but I wonder how it will play out. We have tons more people here compared to Canada, Great Britain or most Asian countries. Americans surely won’t tolerate paying 6,7 buck a gallon to fund healthcare. I don’t trust our politicians to make the smooth transition.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:58 am 3. David Thomson:

“So, exceptions are now the rule?”

Amen. Americans are far better off as a general rule. Catastrophic health problems should actually dominate our concerns. Unfortunately, as pointed out by economist Arnold Kling and others—our medical insurance programs are usually similar to an auto policy covering oil changes, tune-ups, and car washes. Politicians force the insurance companies to cover all sorts of secondary issues. This leaves a lot less money available to handle the heavy duty emergencies.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:33 am 4. dre:

“Not one penny has changed hands.”

Lots of pennies have changed hands. Your friend received her pennies by having the gov’t take pennies from other people by force to pay for her treatment.

Jan 15, 2009 - 3:51 am 5. vivo:

It’s about time Americans realize that health care is a necessity not a luxury. Maybe our leaders and legislators will work for their pay and do something practical.

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:03 am 6. Mary:

As a Canadian whose sister in in remission ater stage 4 breast cancer treatment, I too am grateful for the swift and thorough treatment she received. However, that doesn’t blind me to the reality of long waits, restricted drugs and technologies, and the exhorbitant taxes we pay to fund our “free” health care system. Be careful what you wish for.

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:12 am 7. Jarhead91:

The thing I despise about Neo-Conservatives is their lack of conservatism. Because the bureaucrats managed not to kill this particular patient, it’s a good idea to let the government take over a huge portion of our economy?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Dad-Stewart-Fleming-Dies-After-Six-Hour-Wait-In-Kent-Hospital-Accident-And-Emergency/Article/200812415195509?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15195509_Dad_Stewart_Fleming_Dies_After_Six-Hour_Wait_In_Kent_Hospital_Accident_And_Emergency

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1963042.stm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/10/11/bc_death021011.html

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:35 am 8. Mary Jackson:

The NHS is generally very good for emergencies like this. It’s for more routine stuff that it is not so good.

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:43 am 9. RKV:

“Not one penny changed hands?” That is a lie, and a damned like at that. Everyone at the hospital got paid, and they got paid by the government and the government got paid by taxes on the citizens. It’s a question of economic efficiency (and also individual responsibility) and the market, including a profit motive, is STILL a better way to allocate resources than a command economy is. We’ve got cost problems here in the US, but only rarely do we have care problems. Look to fixing our tort laws and government mandates, and increasing the supply of doctors and other health professionals if you want to really cut the price of healthcare. And by the way, this is one specific case, an anecdote if you will, and the plural of anecdote, is NOT data. Socializing a large fraction of our economy just so we can be like the Uropeans is not a good idea. And this self-identified “neo-con” is likely not conservative at all – she sounds just like another statist to me.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:09 am 10. mk:

Socialised medicine is the future of America. Unfortunately, so are waiting lists for everything from x-rays to major surgeries and taxes out the arse.

But people want it.

Perfect system would be a combo of both systems, but that would take some imagination and no one seems to have that.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:18 am 11. William Keller:

My wife and I have both had cancer in our life times. We have receved outstanding treatment with no reoccurance in my wife for 25 years and myself for 6 years. The health insurance we have chosen, paid for and taylor to our needs is great. Why on earth do I want to give over that responsibility to the government??

The government does nothing to foster my trust. Can you point to a successful public benefit program?? Social Security – bankrupt. Same with Medicare and Medicare part D. Freddie and Fanny – government rules doomed them to a spectacular failure that is laying waste to our economy. Government pensions – both state and federal – underfunded and empty. Come on people – put your thinking caps on.

And remember, Dashel is a promoter of Hillarycare. The government dictates how many doctors in what field. The government determines salaries. The government determines the level of care a patient gets. The government determines which drugs get research.

Have we truly become a society that is willing to give up our individual rights and freedoms, our responsibilities to the illusion of being cared for by the government? God help us and our children if we support such foolishness.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:19 am 12. Jonesy55:

Sorry to hear about your friend Carol but I’m glad she received good care, at its best the UK NHS is very good, the problem is that this high standard isn’t replicated everywhere. As #8 points out, the procedures where you might find long waits (although the situation is nowhere near as bad as a decade ago) is for chronic but painful conditions requiring non-emergency operations like hip replacements, that type of thing. Also access to very new drugs can be patchy and hospitals are not always as bang up to date in terms of buildings, fixtures and fittings etc as they could be.

It’s difficult to know how much is a systemic issue and how much is just a budgetary one. If you doubled the NHS budget to match per person funding levels in the US, many of these problems would either disappear or be greatly mitigated, likewise if you halved the budget of US healthcare, many of these problems would arise even in a mostly private system.

Having said that, if I was creating a health system from scratch, I wouldn’t use the centralised top-down UK model at all, if I wanted universal coverage i’d go down the social insurance road of France or Germany. The comparison with the US system is often painted as a straightforward state vs private comparison but the reality is more complex than that. Many hospitals and services in Europe are provided by private organisations (although public funding is often used to pay for it), while in the US medicare and medicaid spend as much money per taxpayer as most Euro health systems in total and the private market is greatly distorted by government regulation and intervention.

I think that my ideal system would use markets and private organisations to provide the services and would use a funding mechanism that ensured universal coverage while featuring actuarial risk-pricing, individual incentives to reduce health risk and also promoting choice.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:21 am 13. Mike T:

The NHS is generally very good for emergencies like this.

So is the American system. Most systems are good for emergencies. If they weren’t, they would be of minimal value, since few people really need to see a doctor for most things ranging from colds, to allergies, to the flu.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:29 am 14. Jonesy55:

“We have tons more people here compared to Canada, Great Britain or most Asian countries. Americans surely won’t tolerate paying 6,7 buck a gallon to fund healthcare. I don’t trust our politicians to make the smooth transition.”

I often hear the objection that there are more people in the US so it can’t work. I can see how managing a healthcare system at a federal level might be difficult but why not then just get the states to manage it instead?

As for the cost, US taxpayers already pay about as much per head as European taxpayers just to fund medicare and medicaid. Surely some efficiency savings can be made, reforming medical malpractice law and enabling large purchasers to benefit from bulk discounts on drugs might be somewhere to start.

The main beneficiaries from a totally taxpayer funded system would be the employers who currently pay huge premiums on behalf of their employees. So maybe this could be an area to get the required funding from but at a time of rising unemployment and when the US has some of the highest corporation tax rates in the world, this might not be so wise.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:29 am 15. Mike T:

The one thing Obama’s gotten right so far is the need to make a national move to digital records that can be carried by the patient from provider to provider. Combine that with an increase in the availability of training for future medical practitioners, and there will be more than enough opportunities to reduce our costs without socializing medicine.

Furthermore, there are good free clinics available to the poor in most areas. Most of our poor are just too proud to use them. One of my own relatives refuses to use any in her area for routine checkups, preferring to be a drain on medicare.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:34 am 16. Kevin F:

What is the argument of this article? That your friend got good medical care, so therefore nationalized health care is the answer?

No downsides to it, then? No problems at all? No worries about the loss of liberty or the inevitable intrusions the government will make in the name of “health”? No statistics? No notice that the British NHS has serious problems, strikes, ER closures, and shortages? No recognition that the nationalized systems leach off of the drug and manufacturing research only remaining partially-free one? No mention of the unequal distribution of health care in the NHS, especially regarding the poor?

No.
So a supposed conservative is reduced to arguing for a massive change in society based on this anecdote.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:46 am 17. Skip:

I want universal transportation. Give me a Porsche.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:51 am 18. wally:

The key phrase in this article may well be “modestly paid medical practicioners”. Labor costs is one of the major reasons that medical care costs so much. A country can afford universal health care if those working in the industry, the doctors, nurses, x-ray techs, etc. are willing to work for low wages. A country cannot afford universal health care with labor costs similar to ours. If you research this out, that is how it plays out. Countries with universal health care pay their medical personnel lower wages than we do. Good luck in convincing a whole industry to take a huge pay cut.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:01 am 19. Tolbert:

Citing a single instance does not a case make.

If your friend was in the U.S. the standard of care she would have received would have been at least equal and more than likely superior.

Healthcare is not free no matter how you label it.

Was what happened to your friend unfortunate? Yes, but that is life.

We have a form of universal healthcare in the U.S., it is called Medicare and the program is rife with corruption and inadequate care given for the expenditure.

I recently had to have shoulder surgery, was it expensive? Hell yes!, but it was my responsibility, not that of any other person.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:03 am 20. Ozzie:

The only way a national health care plan can be implemented in the US is if the legal system is revamped first. Tort reform at a minimum will be required unless every health care entity is nationalaized and placed under the umbrella of government immunity to incompetance. My wife was almost murdered by Air Force emergency room doctors twice in her career and we got not even an apology. Expect that to be applied to your socialized health care system here.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:09 am 21. Mike T:

I often hear the objection that there are more people in the US so it can’t work. I can see how managing a healthcare system at a federal level might be difficult but why not then just get the states to manage it instead?

Do you really have to ask?

One of the great flaws of modern democracy is that no one can make legislators do their jobs. At least monarchs had to keep the country reasonably functional lest the nobles decide to behead them.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:09 am 22. Mike T:

**Among other forms of regicide awaiting incompetent, petty monarchs.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:10 am 23. Mike T:

The only thing that would keep legislators in check today would be the threat of having over-zealous law enforcement officers dangling a corruption charge in their face if they spend more time chasing the causes of special interests than their own constituents’ needs.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:12 am 24. Nik:

What isn’t explored here is what would have happened if your friend had tried to make an appointment with a doctor to see what was wrong at the first signs of a problem. A friend of mine at school in UK called to do this–saying she thought it was urgent, an emergency, and given an appointment 2 weeks hence. Reminding the person on the phone that she said it was an emergency she was told that yes, she knew that–had it NOT been urgent she’d have had to wait FIVE.

National healthcare UK style–no thanks.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:22 am 25. Libertyship46:

This article brought back some horrible memories of this past summer. My mother was in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at a hospital in New York City (midtown Manhattan, actually)after undergoing an emergency operation for a perforated bowel. The resulting sepsis from the perforation nearly killed her, with massive infections spreading throught her body. She also developed pneumonia and, after around week six in the ICU, she suffered a minor stroke as well. Unbelievably, she managed to survive all of this and, after almost 13 weeks in the ICU, she was sent to a full-service nursing home in Manhattan for rehabilitation. It was a very long and painful road back, but after about 45 days in the nursing home, she was able to go home for another two months for additional convalescence. While at home, she was seen by a visiting nurse service which helped her with her physical and occupational therapy. By mid November, my mom was functioning on her own, approximately six months after this catastrophic event. My mom has Medicare and, once she was back home we received the bill for all of this from both the New York hospital and the nursing home. All in all, she was billed over $1.5 million (yes, I said million). Think of it, she spent over 12 weeks in the ICU at an expensive New York City hospital and another 45 days in a full-service nursing home for physical rehabilitation. But what did my mom actually have to pay for all of this? Because of her Oxford Insurance which is part of the Medicare program (since she’s a senior citizen), her entire bill came to less than $5,000 (yes, that’s right, five thousand dollars). That ment that both Oxford and the US Government picked up the tab for the other $1.5 million. The care she received was incredible and certainly on a par with the care received by that lady in Britain. This is a true story and for anyone who thinks there is no socialized medicine here in the United States, they’re wrong. If you are over 65 and on Medicare, or if you are poor and qualify for Medicaid, this country basically already has socialized medicine. There are also insurance programs now for poor children in some states as well as Medicaid. If you are working and insured by your employer, then you are covered as well. If we can provide affordable insurance for the rest of the Americans who don’t fall within any of the above categories, you will then have total health coverage for the entire country. But what I take issue with in the above article is when the author stated, “In the United States Mil’s mountain of drugs, equipment support, tubes, disposables, gallons of intravenous feeds and Jevity liquid food, plus plain old man and woman hours would have cost close to $1 million by now.” That is certainly true, but it also cost that much in Britain. The only difference is that the British taxpayer is picking up the tab instead of a private insurance company, Medicare, or Medicaid. Shall we compare basic tax rates between the UK and America? And no matter what the above article says, the horror stories of the British healthcare system seem to outweigh the good stories. America still has probably the best (although probably the most expensive) health care system in the world. But I’m sure there is some compromise that we can reach by providing uninsured Americans with affordable health insurance without taking on the crushing tax burden that comes with the British system of universal health care.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:25 am 26. rj:

To William Keller:
You said it perfectly about giving up our freedoms. Government healthcare for a country of our size would destroy our healthcare system. I ran across a quote from Alexander Tyler that was given around the time America was coming up with its constitution. “A democracy is always temporary in nature:it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.” ” A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” “From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapese due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
I fear we began the downward spiral after WWII or at best in the 1960’s.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:37 am 27. Jim Jinkins:

See the post titled “Excess Winter Mortality – An Anecdote”, at L’Ombre de l’Olivier, http://www.di2.nu/200812/21.htm

The title is British understatement for “How the NHS let my mother die”.

Which story is the exception?

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:43 am 28. Jonesy55:

“The key phrase in this article may well be “modestly paid medical practicioners”. Labor costs is one of the major reasons that medical care costs so much. A country can afford universal health care if those working in the industry, the doctors, nurses, x-ray techs, etc. are willing to work for low wages.”

I don’t think that the UK does have very low wages for medical practitioners these days. Maybe some of the very top surgeons can get significantly more in the US I don’t know but the bulk of the wage bill is made up of the rank and file staff.

GPs working for the NHS – regular unspecialised family doctors – average between £80,000 and £120,000 ($120,000 – $180,000)

Consultants get between £74,000 and £174,000 ($111,000 – $261,000)

A qualified nurse get from £20,000 ($30,000) on qualification up to £60,000+ ($90,000+) if they reach the top of the senior grade pay scales. All nursing staff in London get 20% more than these figures for the high cost of living.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=766
http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=553

So while there might be some difference in wages, it isn’t going to make an enormous difference. Ample money is available for universal healthcare in the US from the existing healthcare spend, it’s just a question of whether the will is there to implement it.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:47 am 29. Jonesy55:

“no matter what the above article says, the horror stories of the British healthcare system seem to outweigh the good stories.”

Actually that is almost certainly untrue. The reason that bad stories disproportionately make the press is that they are noteworthy, unusual.

Nobody is going to publish a story with the headline ‘routine medical procedure goes ahead with no problems’ or ‘my grandmother was treated actually quite well in hospital’. You see people writing in to local newspapers all the time with stories like this thanking medical staff but the international press isn’t going to be interested. A horror-story on the other hand makes far more dramatic news.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:55 am 30. Jonesy55:

Personally, my own experiences of the NHS (relative who had a bad car crash, maternity services, emergency room for a badly cut hand, routine doctors appointments, friends experiences etc) have been fine and the service was prompt and good quality. This is probably most people’s experience although obviously some will have tales of woe.

Doesn’t mean that it’s an ideal system though by any means, it could be much better.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:04 am 31. Jonesy55:

“My wife was almost murdered by Air Force emergency room doctors twice in her career and we got not even an apology. Expect that to be applied to your socialized health care system here.”

Actually that isn’t neccesarily the case, ballooning compensation payments are a big strain on the UK NHS budget too, maybe not to the same crazy levels as over the Atlantic but it’s heading that way. We tend to get advance warning of these trends by looking over the pond but seem unable to stop them arriving over here.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:08 am 32. Joe M:

We have a Hospital here in Houston, TX called Ben Taub. It is one of the best trauma centers in the world. It will never deny care to anyone for any reason. It is also widely known here that if you are within 10 minutes of a certain death, pray that the ambulance takes you to Ben Taub. If it is less serious, avoid Ben Taub for surely you will wait until you are 10 minutes from death…

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:17 am 33. Brian:

We’ve gotten a taste of socialized health care through our VA hospitals. Thanks, but no thanks. That kind of care may be the kind we should all receive, but the reality is that it won’t happen that way if it gets socialized here. That’s already self-evident.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:18 am 34. Cara:

I had a food poisoning type issue back in November. It was the middle of the night, so I went to the ER. Had a few tests, left with a couple prescriptions for an antibiotic and a few things to control the side effects, avoided the coma and rehab. I didn’t have to consider alternative medicine, like homeopaths, straight to the ER and quickly diagnosed.

The staff was certified in their specialty, middle aged and probably well paid, but no less caring and enthusiastic.

I was home 8 hours later, my insurance paid the bill except for the 20 dollar copay. The hospital was equipped to do the paparwork, just as the UK hospital filled out papers for their system. There is always paperwork.

Hooray for traditional US medical care.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:23 am 35. jimmyk:

Kevin F makes an important point worth repeating when he says “the nationalized systems leach off of the drug and manufacturing research [of the] only remaining partially-free one”: The profit motive in the U.S. has been the engine of enormous innovation, with spillover benefits throughout the world. Shut that down (or have it be run by the government even more than it already is) and we won’t notice any difference right now, nor will we ever be aware of it, but ten or twenty years from now thousands or millions of people will likely have shorter lives simply because of the slowing of the rate of progress in medical research.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:24 am 36. Lori U.:

My family had the opportunity to live in the UK in the early 90’s and we quickly came under the umbrella of National Health, but when my husband had an infection he was told to come back when it got bad. So much for preventative action!

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:24 am 37. dianne:

I must ask, how old is Mil? I expect she is not a senior citizen. Would a senior citizen (65) have been given those heroic treatments under universal health care or would she have been “allowed to die”. I fear moving toward a “compassionate” euthanasia for anyone 65 years of age and older, maybe even younger.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:25 am 38. Mike B:

I am a American with significant experience with NHS. The article fails to mention that care varies greatly when comparing London or Manchester to mid-size or smaller towns.

I have three recent experiences;

My brother in law, broke a rib on a Saturday afternoon playing soccer. The
casualty (emergency room) sent him away because the X Ray machine only operates Mon-Friday during typical business hours. (9-5?) He came back Monday and indeed has a broken rib.

Sister in law 8 months pregnant with twins, was told she “must” take natural birth classes because the hosptal does not have a anesteciologist on nights or weekends. They call him in only for emergency C-sections. So if you are in pain, tough.

Father in law has so far waited 14 months for a MRI on his knee. His knee clicks when he walks and he is in pain. He is considering coming to America and paying out of pocket for care.

My working class British family always laugh and say they have the worst health care in Western Europe. I suspect the truth is somewhere between there opinion and that of the article writer.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:27 am 39. Jonesy55:

“I’m sure there is some compromise that we can reach by providing uninsured Americans with affordable health insurance without taking on the crushing tax burden that comes with the British system of universal health care.”

I think that this is a common misunderstanding, the British system is actually pretty cheap, the ‘crushing tax burden’ that we pay for our national health service is about 8% of GDP. The combined costs of medicare, medicaid and other public health expenditure in the US are, guess what about 8% of GDP.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:28 am 40. 2178743:

Socialism has failed everywhere it is tried. I can;t believe anyone who has ever been to the MVA would want their health care run under the same system. We have the best system in the world, why change it to a system that is a proven failure. This makes no sense to me.

http://www.usefulopinions.blogspot.com

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:30 am 41. Roger Godby:

Japan has national health largely delivered by private clinics. I pay 30% of the capped fees, the government and/or employer pick up the remaining 70%. The greying society means the system is deep in the red and patients are expected to have to start paying more; however, the elderly are a key voting block and there are few young people. Emergency care after private clinics close around 6pm is spotty outside major urban areas; overnight service is a rotating duty, but the local policebox might not even know who is open *tonight, now*. There’s a good chance the doctor won’t speak English and certain treatments/medicines are either not covered, not allowed, or not on par with other developed countries. If you have the money and time, Thailand is a popular medical-vacation choice.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:30 am 42. jane:

In spite of positive stories like this, even the supporters of universal health care do not refute the stories of long delays and outright inability to get routine services Americans take for granted. If we as a people were willing to wait weeks to see an internist why do we have so many drop in medical clinics?

It’s so easy for the averge American to whine about how overpaid health care providers are but do people really think that doctors – especially in specialized fields are going to spend all those years in med schools in order to get paid at union wages? We already see some fields like OB/GYN having shortages. I have 1 niece who just graduated from med schools who went into research rather than patient care due to things like malpractice and insurance. Two other young people in my family are currently in med schools and intend on going that same route.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:30 am 43. Wendy:

This “Neo-Con” is in favor of UK NHS? The key word in that is “CON”. But it doesn’t mean “conservative”, for sure.

Where will the Canadians and others go for the good healthcare they come for, if we turn to the same failed systems they have?? Hmm? Save the Canadians!!

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:32 am 44. Del Simmons:

“Not one penny has changed hands.”

What a silly statement to make. The doctors have all been paid. The taxes have all been collected. The hospital has been funded. To pretend that “not one penny has changed hands” is to simply ignore the financial reality of how the system works.

People in similar situations in the US are treated in the same high quality way in America every day. You’ve allowed your infatuation with your delusion that “not one penny has changed hands” to cloud your judgment and affect your perception of reality. Open your eyes and see the WHOLE picture instead of just what is visible to you in the waiting room.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:33 am 45. drjohn:

“In the United States Mil’s mountain of drugs, equipment support, tubes, disposables, gallons of intravenous feeds and Jevity liquid food, plus plain old man and woman hours would have cost close to $1 million by now.

This is universal health care. Americans deserve this. Every American. Now.”

Where exactly does Gould think the money for this comes from?

The government? Trees?

Does she have any idea how many of these cases it would take to destroy a system?

Eventually it would be triaged, and Gould would not like what that looks like one bit.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:35 am 46. Jonesy55:

“My family had the opportunity to live in the UK in the early 90’s and we quickly came under the umbrella of National Health, but when my husband had an infection he was told to come back when it got bad. So much for preventative action!”

The early to mid 90s were probably the nadir of the NHS, Margaret Thatcher did many good things but I can’t say that improving the health system was one of them.

Her wing of the Conservative party was never a great fan of the NHS but instead of proposing a radically different, better alternative and trying to sell that to the electorate, the policy seemed to be to simply starve the system of funds so that the public would turn against it.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:37 am 47. RonB:

Ms. Gould,

You called your friend and engaged in a conversation where she is incoherent. She hangs up. You call again several times over the next several days when she doesn’t answer. Did it ever occur to you that your friend was seriously ill and needed medical attention immediately? Didn’t it occur to you that you could have called for help? And now we ‘neo-cons’ must endure your condescending lecture about the miracle of NHS. You’re some kind of friend.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:37 am 48. RightwingHippyChick:

THe NHS is good for emergencies, but very bad at anything else. It’s almost impossible to get an MRI scan done, physiotherapy has long waiting times, wards are mixed(and filthy) and if you need drugs that are too expensive, you’re abandoned to die (look up NICE)

And, the NHS was free for your friend, but we who pay the tax for the NHS pay far more than we would have to pay if we insured privately. It’s annoying to read about your friend getting free treatment on my tax pound(and you crowing about it like it’s a good thing), she should be charged. No wonder we don’t have enough resources if we treat the world for free (the N in NHS stands for ‘National’, it’s not the World Health Service!) Put another way, your friend is a bed blocker and someone somewhere who has paid for his place in the NHS, is sitting in agony and fear, waiting for this bed to become free.

Incidentally, a lot of people still buy private insurance, because with many painful conditions(gallstones for one), the NHS expects you to wait a few month before you can even see a specialist, and if you get cancer, you have one of the lowest survival expectancy in Europe. Again, even with cancer there are waiting times, and imagine how you feel if you have a 28 day wait for the confirming scan…

Basically, on paper, the NHS is a great idea, but in reality, a lot of needed services only exist in theory and many illnesses are made chronic and far worse than they should by the waiting times and the rationing of drugs.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:39 am 49. Jonesy55:

“The article fails to mention that care varies greatly when comparing London or Manchester to mid-size or smaller towns.”

That’s a valid point, whilst this example paints a positive picture of the London NHS, the service there struggles more than most areas of the country to attract and retain high quality staff due to higher housing costs, higher level of private sector salaries, more transient population etc.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:42 am 50. njcommuter:

“Would have cost $1,000,000″? It probably did. It may have cost more.

Socialized medicine doesn’t reduce the cost of health care. It hides it. And when costs are hidden, the people who manage them and the people who are supposed to benefit have different goals.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:49 am 51. Jonesy55:

“Sister in law 8 months pregnant with twins, was told she “must” take natural birth classes because the hosptal does not have a anesteciologist on nights or weekends. They call him in only for emergency C-sections. So if you are in pain, tough.”

Wow, that sucks, I too have recent experience of maternity services and this was never an issue, different areas have different practices I guess.

“Father in law has so far waited 14 months for a MRI on his knee. His knee clicks when he walks and he is in pain. He is considering coming to America and paying out of pocket for care.”

Instead of paying himself to go to the US, he may well be able to go to France or Belgium and make the NHS pay.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:49 am 52. Richard L. Kent, Esq.:

I served in Bosnia. One of my translators, a beautiful newlywed woman of 24, died of lieukemia–a disease which, if properly diagnosed, would have been relatively easily treatable.

It wasn’t. Why?

The old Yugoslav federation put all its oncologists into Croatia, its transplant and trauma specialists in Bosnia, its other specialists in other parts of the country. Then, when NATIONAL HEALTH CARE (among other things) caused the Yugoslav federation to go bankrupt, my girl was left with nobody in Bosnia to recognize–or treat–relatively treatable cancers. She died.

Americans are ALREADY on the ragged edge of bankruptcy (as is Britain). We need national health care like we need a machine-gun-induced hole in the head (which is what a lot of Bosnians got when the Yugoslav federation went bankrupt).

No.

Thank.

You.

Richard L. Kent, Esq.
Eastpointe,MI
Former U.S. Peacekeeper, Bosnia-Herzegovina

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:49 am 53. Gary Ogletree:

Having lived 23 years in Canada I had nothing but positive experience with the BC Medical Plan. It was a shock to return to the US and see how people were treated by our system. Canadians pay a lot higher tax but they get their money’s worth. No one goes bankrupt from medical bills. They also take charge of you all the way through, not dumping you out of the hospital in severe distress, as they did my mother twice before she died, even though she was fully covered by Medicare and Tricare. The Canadian system is not perfect but they sure don’t want ours.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:02 am 54. Dennis39:

When a product or service is free, people will be wasteful and squander the resources.

Example — in Chicago, healthy people on public aid call 911 to get an ambulance ride to see their doctor, pick up their prescription, etc. How? They game the system, complain of “chest pain” to the 911 operator & paramedics to get the free ride. They do not have to pay for ambulance (as opposed to a tax-paying citizen). Instead they could have taken public transportation, but that’s not as convenient.

This is a waste of resources – the city needs to hire more paramedics & put more ambulances on the street. Paid for by the taxpayer.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:06 am 55. Gary Ogletree:

P.S.: I expect the Democrats to make a perfect mess of universal health care with high costs and low service. After all, a lot of that money has to be kicked back to their campaign funds.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:07 am 56. Mike T:

Actually that isn’t neccesarily the case, ballooning compensation payments are a big strain on the UK NHS budget too, maybe not to the same crazy levels as over the Atlantic but it’s heading that way. We tend to get advance warning of these trends by looking over the pond but seem unable to stop them arriving over here.

Just like many Americans looked across the pond, saw the way that yobs can operate with impunity, and abandoned delusions of gun control working as advertised. One cannot read a British news source online without regularly coming across a story of some British thug stomping some senior citizen’s head in for telling them to go away or cutting up some old woman’s dog just for fun. The bloods and crips behave like old school Cosa Nostra by comparison.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:09 am 57. Jonesy55:

Supporters of all systems can trade anecdotes – positive and negative – about the various alternatives, but those anecdotes alone are not particularly convincing evidence either way for me. All systems have their problems, different countries might suit different systems better than others.

In terms of basic broad indicators such as infant mortality, life expectancy, morbidity, cost etc the universal systems of western Europe do pretty well for us by international comparison so there is no great appetite for reform to become more like the US.

Obviously they could be better, any system can always be better but I don’t think that the US model is one we’d want to copy, elements of it maybe but not the whole caboodle.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:12 am 58. Rockmelon:

Universal health care is absolutely not the answer!

We need to control health care costs to make preventative care affordable to everyone! Preventative care is the answer. We need to be responsible for ourselves and not pass the management and care of our bodies on to the government.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:14 am 59. Jonesy55:

“Just like many Americans looked across the pond, saw the way that yobs can operate with impunity, and abandoned delusions of gun control working as advertised. One cannot read a British news source online without regularly coming across a story of some British thug stomping some senior citizen’s head in for telling them to go away or cutting up some old woman’s dog just for fun. The bloods and crips behave like old school Cosa Nostra by comparison.”

Er, right, ok. No need to get touchy, I was just making the point that many cultural trends wend their way eastwards across the atlantic, you are an influential nation.

I’m sure the bloods and the crips are lovely civilised folk who could teach any British person a lesson in good manners.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:21 am 60. TL:

I’m disappointed to see this article on Pajamas. I thought I had found a place to come for talk of freedom, not universalism or whatever other word socialists use these days to try to veil their real nature.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:26 am 61. Expat Chip:

Very pleased for the lucky lady.

My brother, born and bred Englishman never been out of work cannot obtain care and drugs to assist his medical condition through the NHS. Our other brother who was a serviceman and partially disabled after combat is fighting the UK veterans for assisatnce after having to pay for some of his own medcare.

I suspect it’s a real lottery ?

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:34 am 62. J. Burns:

Government likes to take over systems which should be administered by the private sector, not to help, but to control the financing of those systems in order to carve out bureaucratic jobs for … bureaucrats. They forced financial institutions to make loans to people who had no history of paying their debts on time, and now that they whole thing has collapsed, they are sticking the taxpayers and our children and grandchildren with the bill. I
They’ll oversee health care with the same glorious efficiency as the post office. Eventually, they’ll have to do what Canada does, allot a set amount per year for each type of procedure, illness, or treatment, and when that’s gone, wait till next year. So if my mother had to have emergency surgery, as she did last year, perhaps they would just ask her to die, because, after all, she’s nearly 80, and not productive, they think, anymore.
Why do you think Canadians cross the border for treatment now?

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:44 am 63. Fred Beloit:

“A Neo-con Praises the British Health Service” A neo-con? No, a non-con. This is the way progressives try to sell their old, cloudy-eyed fish. Tell a tale of woe, alas and well-a-day. “Time [magazine] cries and lets you care.” This one heartbreaking story proves we must revisit the few remaining tax-payers in the U.S. and take more of their assets. Sure it does. Be ashamed, PJM.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:50 am 64. John Steele:

15. Mike T:

The One has done no such thing. He hasn’t even been crowned yet. And its Congress that will have to do the deed and if you think they are going to get such a program right you are sadly mistaken.

Please lets try to refrain from attributing things to The One until they actually occur.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:50 am 65. Jonesy55:

Expat chip – Yes there is an element of lottery but I’ve also read many stories of people being denied various treatments under the US system because their insurance doesn’t cover it, pre-existing conditions clauses etc

You can buy cheap top-up insurance cover in the UK which enables you to have procedures done privately if the wait is over x days or if the NHS doesn’t provide that treatment. The take-up levels are fairly low though which probably indicates that the chances of being refused something important are correspondingly low.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:51 am 66. ctmom:

Wow Free Healthcare!!! The only way it is free is if you are not a taxpayer. Somebody is paying for it, just not you.

So all the druggies and illegals and criminals who don’t work and pay taxes will get FREE Healthcare! Only in America!

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:01 am 67. susan:

I can’t believe people are that stupid.

So health care is “free”.

what fairy tale are you living if you get something for nothing?

Second point, what part of “it has been tried in some states (hawaii, VA etc) and it failed” you do not understand?

And again, let’s make only some people pay for the health care of everybody, that makes sense. It’s called extorsion diguised as fake charity.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:08 am 68. Obligations:

You want universal healthcare? You want my tax dollars to pay for your care?

OK, then you need to pick up your end of the responsibilities.

You must run 3 miles a day, 5 days a week.
You must stay within 5lbs of your ideal weight at all times.
You must take medicines prescribed to you as prescribed at all times.
You may not engage in any dangerous activity – no riding without helmets, no unprotected sex, no high fat foods etc.
You must permit the government to confirm your compliance with each of these obligations.

You don’t like these rules and intrusions on your private life?

Fine, don’t ask me to contribute to your medical care.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:08 am 69. Mike B:

When I am in the UK I always find this discussion interesting because many over there and I suspect in the US as well, still cling to the thought that the uninsured in the US don’t get care. Anyone that has been to an American Emergency room knows this is bogus as its loaded with uninsured people getting care. They are stabilized and then sent to a County hospital where they get the same treatment as those insured. Less convenient yes, less service no. So when comments are made such as;

“but I’ve also read many stories of people being denied various treatments under the US system because their insurance doesn’t cover it, pre-existing conditions clauses etc”

While in some cases this is true, its over simplified. Many without insurance such as illegal aliens get expensive treatment such as transplants and cancer treatment at tax payer expense. But they get them at County Hospitals not at private hospitals.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:12 am 70. joecool:

It is obviously misunderstood by most people that when you tax the crap out of them & take away their free will of choice, people’s mortality is affected negatively.
But it’s affected in ways we don’t measure & it’s actually more harmful to the population’s mortality as a whole.
Like for instance, air plane fares are so high bcs of govt regs, taxes, etc, moving more people to drive to their destinations instead of fly, resulting in higher traffic deaths.
Govt taxing people takes away needed income to live a HEALTHIER lifestyle, i.e better living conditions,food, transportation, etc.
This in turn affects their MORTALITY.
Free enterprise comes with personal responsibility & is therefore deadly to the stupid, lazy, ignorant, & weak among us.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:22 am 71. ignatzk:

I don’t trust anyone who uses the word ‘riven’.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:30 am 72. LynnS:

Say what you want but when and old man collapses outside of Walmart and when someone says they are calling for an ambulance he struggles to get up proclaiming “No, I can’t afford it”. Something is wrong. This is not a made-up story, I witnessed it.

I also have personal experience with my uninsured son and the inflated cost of emergency room care, and how it has become like bargaining for a item in a flea market. Many uninsured people are lost in the system, have no advocate, and are charged way over what insurance companies are charged for the same service. They stop going to the doctors, dentists, or emergency room. Is that what this country is about?

#67 You forgot to say….and don’t get old or be the victim of misfortune because one day you or someone you love will be on medicare or medicaid or WIC etc. and someone will be paying for your bills. The problem is not providing basic health care for all citizens or affordable health insurance, the problem is the people who take advantage of our social programs and milk the system who take away from the deserving.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:32 am 73. JamesJ:

Here in the US, govt single-payer health care is inevitable and it will make things worse

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:38 am 74. Doc in PA:

My labor is NOT somebody elses “right”. If I am forced to become a slave I will develop a serious passive-aggressive lack of a work ethic. You will be waiting a LONG time for nonemergent care because I’m not going to bust my butt like I do now.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:40 am 75. Naman:

“No one penny has changed hands”
I disagree; vehemently. I’m glad your friend didn’t have to pay for that care, but someone DID pay and that someone was the British tax payer. That care was definitely NOT free.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:43 am 76. Bill:

Thanks to not having socialized medicine in America our innovation and technology has given all countries with socialized healthcare the ability to offer life saving drugs and machines with not “a penny” changing hands.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:53 am 77. Hinky:

“Not one penny has changed hands.”

One of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. It’s pretty darn expensive on the other guy, maintaining the illusion that healthcare is free.

American’s have always believed freedom is a universal right–not healthcare. And the two are mutually exclusive. Want the big nanny-gov to change your diaper for you, Ms. Gould? Okay, but then that gives it the right to dictate what you can and cannot do down to the most basic personal decisions such as what you eat. When the government pays the bills you live by its rules. Not for this American Never.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:59 am 78. pat:

the problem of a US universal care is the cost of paying for non citizens who contribute nothing to the medical care. Canadians found so many US citizens living in the US having or borrowing Canadian MSI cards that they were using to get free treatment in Canada that boder provences like New Brunswick started requiring that the ID cards be reissued ever few years. Fraud by Americans on a massive scale – all justified by I only got one appointment or whatever smallish freebee (x-ray). Multiplied by tens of thousands and it is a heafty cost. Truro NS (about 500 miles away from the american border, had a home that took lifelong care of of the mentaly disabled. Americans were known to abandon their disabled children there because of their belief that Canadians have “free” care. I do not doubt that some Canadians would the same if the situation was reversed. But since they have good enough care paid for by their taxes, you Americans have loads of Mexicans and other illegal immigrants making use of your “free” medical services but hardly any Canadians. Remember the British “free” care is also utilized by foreigners – ones who sometimes actually trip to the UK just for the purpose of gaining “free” care.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:03 am 79. helen:

The most interesting question for me is how the author who claims to be a close friend after hearing for several days that Mil was not OK and even bacame incoherent, not not rush to her or, if she( the “friend”) had some infection, did not find another friend, did not call 911 or whatever they have in Britain. All this story has a very bad smell. I think that the “friend” should be sued for negligence at best. I would not wish anybody to have a friend like the author.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:09 am 80. susan:

“the problem is the people who take advantage of our social programs and milk the system who take away from the deserving.”

well let me tell you from a country with socialized medicine, if you are afraid of the people taking advantage of it, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Enter the socialist mentality and you will see that any illegal immigrant (that pays no taxes, lives in a free home and government finds him a “phony job”) has got more rights than you.

Socialized medicine can work well in the following types of countries

1) small countries (by size – ie switzerland)
2) small countries (by population – ie finland)
3) countries with a high civic ethic (scandinavia)
4) countries with limited/moderate/controlled immigration (???)

If your country is a YES on all the above then I agree that socialized health care is wonderful and morally right, because corruption is limited, you do not waste money on illegals and you have a good control on expenses and activities.

USA is a big NO NO for all the 4 of them (i might restrain on point 3, but still one point out of 4 is not enough).

It has been tried in Hawaii, it failed, what is the answer of the pro-health care about it?

It seems to me that Hawaii is small, have a small population but still IT FAILED.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:11 am 81. Brian:

Yeah great idea!!! We all know how well the government has managed NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY! Now you want to give these nuts control over your heart by-pass??? Are you insane? Once you give government control over health, then THEY decide who gets what when. Thank you very much, but even at the high costs I will stick with the medical system we currently have. I work with many Canadians and have heard well about the system there. Money STILL rules. They have levels of treatment. Those that pay more get better treatment…. Hmm sounds like what we already have! There are already plans in place in the US to cover medical for the poor. The problem is, the middle which don’t have coverage through an employer. I personally experienced this. SOLUTION: Don’t go buy that brand new BMW with $600 per month payments. Instead, buy the ford focus and use the saving to buy a medical plan for your family. I paid for my own coverage for a family of 4 for less than the cost of that BMW payment. It’s called PRIORITIES! Government health care IS NOT free.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:13 am 82. Psychobarb:

I lived in the UK for three years and the reality is that there are huge costs to NHS and British citizens pay dearly in exhorbitant taxes.

Healthcare is uneven; there are sections of the country where hospitals are poorly run and are overun with infection plus the wait for MRI’s and diagnostic tests can take months/years. Women get mammograms at age 50, there is some rationale for this, and are invited to get a pap smear every two years. For women expecting mammograms yearly, forget it, this is because medical care is rationed, as it will be here with socialized medicine.

Socialized medicine is NOT equal for all; just like in the States better off people live near better surgeries and get better doctors and medical care. Dentists generally DO NOT accept the NHS plan so people do not get much dentistry.

Though the cruelest part of socialized medicine is the false assumption government will take care of your health and people tend to take what they get and “muddle along”. They do not save for preventive medical procedures because they are unsed to opening their purses for medical care. They wait and are at the whim of the government which periodically decides to shut down your area hospital.

The University of Surrey Hospital, a major teaching hospital, was slated for closure but thankfully people fought back.

The government does a swell job managing Social Securty and Medicare, let’s give em our health dollars!

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:17 am 83. MarkD:

Jonesy55, I cannot even buy healthcare insurance to meet my needs. The New York State Legislature has decided that free mamograms and school physicals and a host of other services must be provided.

Catastrophic care coverage would be fine. I can afford the routine screenings. It’s not permitted. So I pay thousands for my healthcare, and my employer pays even more.

Pardon my cynicism that the Congress would cause less harm. Overweight, drink, smoke? Wait until the government fixes your bad behavior. You’re costing them money and that can’t be allowed. Maybe they’ll handle it like the Marine Corps did – fatbodies fall in at 5 am for mandatory PT until they can pass the Physica Fitness Test. I still can, but can you?

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:27 am 84. Michael:

The govenment is always the last resort in a sane society because the government is the least efficient organization.

The US system is doomed however because of lawyers. Tort reform is at the heart of what is needed in the US and it will NEVER NEVER happen. What are the kprior jobs of 95% of legislators? There you are, I knew you knew the answer.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:28 am 85. kellk:

I’d like to mention a few items in your article.

1. Patient rushed to hospital and hooked up to ventilators, dialysis etc.,put on antibiotic drips.

2. Patients friend informed GP over weekend of allergy to penicillin.

3. GP (general practioner) does’nt receive, or act on information until Mon.

4. Patient no longer given penicillin.

5. Penicillin not effective treatement for particular strain of pnuemonia.

6. Patient prescribed new meds.

7. Patient begins long recovery.

I thought in universal health care the GP should have been informing the hospital staff of her medical history?

Why did it take the weekend?

Why was she given this antibiotic when it was not effective against the illness she had in the first place?

Were’nt tests done to determine her illness?

Did the penicillin actually agrravate and worsen her condition?

If you think great healthcare is rolling up in an ambulance and being hooked up to machines to save your life and having pleasant doctors take care of you for free ,thats great. I just wonder how great the healthcare she received really was?

Universal healthcare run by government is one size fits all and works if you are a relatively healthy individual. Think of it this way, soon we could have congess in charge of our health determining what gets covered and what doesn’t, who lives, who dies, how many children we are entitled to and at what age we should live until so as not to become a burden on taxpayers.

The U.K. citizen is taxed heavily for their healthcare and everything else. It is a bad idea to bring this form of healthcare reform here.

3

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:37 am 86. KittyLou:

Your friend was extremely lucky. Ask any person in the UK with a chronic disease, like MS, how easy it is to get one of the disease modifying injectables. It’s not. The NHS deems it too expensive. Too bad you lose. Thank God I live in the US where I can get the drugs.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:46 am 87. susan:

“They have levels of treatment. Those that pay more get better treatment…. Hmm sounds like what we already have! ”

this is the reality, no matter at what latitude rich people will always have better doctors, because the best doc around won’t waste his talent being employed by the nationalized medicine, but instead will work for private hospitals that can pay him a fortune.

Give it up, equality is a dream, so let’s at least try to have people able to keep their money.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:50 am 88. Mike T:

The One has done no such thing. He hasn’t even been crowned yet. And its Congress that will have to do the deed and if you think they are going to get such a program right you are sadly mistaken.

Please lets try to refrain from attributing things to The One until they actually occur.

Please try to refrain from assuming that someone is an Obama supporter while you’re at it. I voted for McCain. Hence why I said that the only thing Obama has done right so far is to push for us to go in that direction.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:55 am 89. Flighterdoc:

Sorry, but your friend would have received excellent care (including being cleaned up) at most any hospital in the US, also at no charge to herself. Thanks to a federal law called EMTALA.

And as KittyLou said, she’s lucky the NHS and NICE didn’t decide that her treatment was too expensive. Thats how socialized medicine rations health care.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:56 am 90. Pappadave:

Dre is absolutely correct. NHS is NOT “free.” The draconian tax rates in GB bear witness to this. I have a British friend who spends more than half of each year away from home, working abroad, because he can then protect much of his income from the tax man.

NO ONE has the “right” to anyone else’s money or other assets simply by existing, and NHS is based entirely on the premise that “the government” will take care of you. Since government has no money of its own, it must take that money from someone who’s actually earned it in order to give it to someone who hasn’t. I’m happy for your friend Mil, but she’d have gotten exactly the same, good care here. All she had to do was keep up her insurance premiums for herself.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:09 am 91. Jeff:

The US system is already half public and the rest is heavily regulated — it is perhaps the most heavily regulated industry in the United States.

The difference between the American system and the NHS is like the difference with property between fascism and socialism. You may have “property” under a fascist state but the state gets to do whatever it wants with it. It is, as the saying goes, a distinction without a difference. The American system has no essential difference with the NHS system as far as individual right is concerned. A true free market for health care, however, would out perform both.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:10 am 92. Carol Gould:

I have lived the majority of my life in the UK and have received absolutely superb care from earliest youth to my near-retirement age now. I have no complaints and have found the doctors and staff the most wonderful one could imagine.

I wrote this article from the vantage point of a lifetime of, sadly, many medical crises; I feel the British system, with all its faults, should be regarded as the envy of the world. The British teaching hospitals attract doctors and nurses from across the globe so they may enhance their skills. The only bad experience I ever had was at the Princess Grace Hospital, and that was a true nightmare. It was a Private admission! Ha! BUPA, the insurer, was transigent. I had paid in to them for 25 years and they would not pay for me to stay an extra night in the middle of winter, even though I had developed a strep throat. This would never happen in the NHS.

Re ‘Not a penny changed hands.’ My mother was dying in Philadelphia and whilst the hospital dithered about her insurance/Medicare card she could have been saved. Yes, of course, pennies go into the UK system and out of our pockets but I would happily pay even higher taxes if it meant making the NHS even better than it already is. No comments from readers so far have convinced me other than ‘God Bless the NHS.’

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:14 am 93. Patrick Poole:

“This is universal health care. Americans deserve this. Every American. Now.”

Hmmm…let’s see. Gould estimates that $1 million was spent on the care of her friend. There are 300 million Americans. For everyone to get that kind of care would be $300 TRILLION. That is larger than the economy of the entire planet.

In response to those extolling the virtues of Canadian health care I would note that here in Columbus (OH), our hospitals make a great living treating patients from Canada who can’t get timely care back home.

I was living in England during the NHS reform debates back in 2002 and heard the statistics on treatment in the UK. At the time, the average wait for an angioplasty (heart cath) procedure was 18 months. Most patients either died or ended up having emergency by-pass.

If you want a vision of govt-run health care in the US, spend an afternoon in your local BMV. The same bureaucrats will be making your health care decisions. Thanks, but no thanks.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:19 am 94. Dave in SoCal:

Jonesy55:

I’m sure the bloods and the crips are lovely civilised folk who could teach any British person a lesson in good manners.

Just as I’m sure those lovely, civilized Britishers marching in the streets shouting “Kill the Jews” and “Death to those who blaspheme Mohammad” can do the same for the 99.999% of US citizens who are neither crips nor bloods.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:31 am 95. JoshC:

“Hayek:

So, exceptions are now the rule?”

*sigh*

Americans think their Health system is like ER and House and everything is perfect (unless you’re one of the 40 million who can’t afford any health care) and the British think our Health system is the disaster as reported by our sensationalist media, where one error in a service of over 2 million employees is blown out of all proportion into a national problem that infects every hospital.

Neither of us are right.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:32 am 96. Brian:

“I feel the British system, with all its faults, should be regarded as the envy of the world. The British teaching hospitals attract doctors and nurses from across the globe so they may enhance their skills.”

Same thing could be said for the US system. Only downside is costs, eliminate excessive lawsuits and that will be greatly reduced. If the surgeon cuts off the wrong limb in the UK, can you sue them? Get granted 50 million pounds or some such non-sense?

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:39 am 97. Dave in SoCal:

The US medical system is broken and badly in need of fixing, but universal health care is not the solution. All it does is shift who pays. It does nothing to resolve ANY of the underlying problems.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:42 am 98. susan:

well josh, i take the word of any american here about their health care than yours who do not obviously live there and everything is hear-say

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:42 am 99. Dave in SoCal:

“The British teaching hospitals attract doctors and nurses from across the globe so they may enhance their skills”

I seem to recall that of the eight people implicated in the 2007 Glasgow would-be suicide bombing, most of them had worked for the NHS and five of them were doctors recruited by the NHS.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:51 am 100. A.N. Khan:

“No comments from readers so far have convinced me other than ‘God Bless the NHS.’”

Remarkable, since nothing you wrote IN your article seems to actually constitute anything resembling objective evidence for your point. Yes, it’s very nice that your friend (whose welfare seems to be a source of simultaneous concern and indifference in your article; after all, who among us has not thought “something was terribly wrong” and then done… whatever it is you did) had a good experience with the NHS. And?

Among the problems with your article is that, other then the title, there is no indication of any Conservative principle you are applying to this “analysis”; if, as it appears, being a Neo-con is simply co-incidental to this anecdote, why put it in the title? Why not “A Woman praises the National Health care service” or indeed “A Blond/Brunet/Redhead/Bald woman (pick the applicable) praises the NHS”? It would be just as important to your article.

However, since none of the points above have swayed you, and you seem to wish to traffic in anecdotes, how about this one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4231513/Dying-patient-treated-in-foul-smelling-bathroom.html

“A terminally ill Alzheimer’s patient had to be treated in a foul-smelling bathroom due to hospital overcrowding.”

Which is the correct face of the NHS? Is it possible that two isolated incidents reveal almost nothing about a sprawling system like the NHS, and that making decisions on the national level based on such “evidence” is the very opposite of rational (and certainly conservative) prudence?

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:55 am 101. Spindok:

Wait… A critically ill hospitalized patient in the ICU was treated with Penicillin???

In the US guidlines call for immediate empirical IV treatment with an extended spectrum Cephalosporin and a Macrolide or a fluroquinilone.

All of those drugs have low cross reactivity to PCN allergy.

But Penicillin is dirt cheap.

And nobody called her GP on admission???

Then they failed to notice the allergic reaction???

Here in the US we call that malpractice.

She is lucky to be alive.

Spindok

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:58 am 102. Dave in SoCal:

Carol Gould:
My mother was dying in Philadelphia and whilst the hospital dithered about her insurance/Medicare card she could have been saved.

What what she dying from and what could the hospital have done different that would have saved her?

I think you’re leaving out a few details here. Thanks to EMTALA, hospitals are required to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

I find it extremely hard to believe that ANY American hospital would let your mother die of a life-threatening and treatable condition in their waiting room while quibbling over insurance.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:07 pm 103. A.N. Khan:

One last little horror-show courtesey of the British Health Services;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/4029829/Dying-World-War-Two-hero-stripped-of-human-dignity-by-hospital-care-family-say.html

A highlight from the article;
“I just can’t believe that any hospital would keep excrement-covered clothing in a locker for five days … I got the impression that this lack of attention must be endemic because it was so lightly treated.”

So, according to the loved ones of Brigadier John Platt, appalling “lack of attention must be endemic”. Are they right, or are you, Ms. Gould?

“His case came to light as Nial Dickson, chief executive of the health thinktank the King’s Fund, warned of a deterioration of compassion from under-pressure staff in NHS hospitals.”

Which is it Ms. Gould, are the lapses described really something “[t]hat would never happen in the NHS”, or are they the result of “deterioration of compassion from under-pressure staff in NHS hospitals”?

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:09 pm 104. Mitch:

“Not one penny has changed hands.”

The author loses quite a bit of credibility with that statement. The idea that a government provided service is free is a fallacy.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:47 pm 105. momof3:

In the United States Mil’s mountain of drugs, equipment support, tubes, disposables, gallons of intravenous feeds and Jevity liquid food, plus plain old man and woman hours would have cost close to $1 million by now.”

Here’s the thing: it did there too! Only the $1 mil was paid by taxpayers. I’ve had toxic shock, twins born premature who spent a month in the NICU, and any number of other issues, and have spent less than I would have in 2 years worth of UK taxes on it, total. I didn’t lay in filth, either, even when circling the drain. I’ve never had to prove insurance in an ER. They take you in and treat, and bill later. And why is it that medical tourism is sending tens of thousands of Brits to India and central america yearly, to pay cash for tests and treatments they could have for free in the UK? The ridiculously long waits, and the fact that the government says what you do and don’t need, not your dr, over there. The government that’s picking up the tab. Are you comfortable with some government autobot making your health decisions? I’d rather an insurance beancounter do it. They. at least, are vulnerable to the threat of a lawsuit.

Past that, I agree with post # 101. And why on earth would the GP have to tell the hospital, is someone else was there that could???

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:47 pm 106. DavidN:

The weird part of this article is that Ms. Gould misses all of the consequences of her suggestion. Does anyone think we’d be able to deny non-citizens this “free” health care? We’re trying to reduce the number of illegal aliens here in the States. One significant difference between Canada and Britain on the one hand and the United States on the other is what those countries are close to. Canada is to the far north, and very distant from Latin America, and Britain doesn’t even have a land-based border with any other country. You have to cross the English Channel to get there, as everyone from William the Conqueror to Napoleon to Hitler found out. And, not to put too fine a point on it, most of the European nations that have national health care *also* have pretty restrictive rules and laws regarding whether you can immigrate to their country and become eligible for their health care without paying someone something.

Imagine the United States trying something like this. We can’t stop illegals from entering the country, selling drugs and otherwise committing crimes, and then skating on bail and running back to Mexico or wherever. So the problem becomes this: when you speak of nationalizing health care, you have to take whatever the private sector spends, collectively, on health care, and start adding zeros to it, and when you come to a figure astronomical enough to actually cover everything, then you have to raise taxes enough to pay for everything. Talk about killing off the economy!

There is one more thing. Just because Britain has a good experience with some parts of a nationalized health care system doesn’t mean that an American version of it would be identical with the British one. In reality, it’d probably look more like the a cross between the post office and the IRS, with stethoscopes. The military has hospital systems for its personnel, and of course the VA provides health care for retired military. Anyone remember the problems at Walter Reed? The VA has been the subject of repeated investigations into its records of incompetence, indifference, and lack of funding (of course). Does *anyone* think that we need a hospital system that functions as well as our school system does? We’d have a phalanx of bureaucrats tinkering with an enormous organization that didn’t work, and no one would be able to get anything they needed.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:01 pm 107. rvastar:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.”

Alexander Fraser Tyler, “The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic”

In 1965, mandatory entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) made up 29% of federal expenditures. Today, that number is close to 60%, with a real spending increase of 759%.

By 2050, the federal govt’s own projections envision entitlement spending consuming nearly 20% of US GDP. And that’s just entitlement spending…that doesn’t count the amount that will be further consumed in meeting other federal taxation, as well as state and local taxation. Oh…and at the same time, the number of people between the ages of 20-64 will only be increasing by 10% while the number of those 65+ will increase by 50%.

And those were the estimates before govt interference in housing and financial markets caused the worst financial meltdown in US history since the Great Depression, thus ushering in projected budget deficits that measure in the trillions of dollars.

And in spite of all of this, we’re looking to throw universal health care into the mix.

This country has descended into madness. Pure madness. Regardless of what Leftists may believe, the laws of economics are not subjective. If you continue to spend more money than you produce, you eventually go broke…it’s as predictable as the sunrise and it’s unavoidable. Quite simply: we have too many hundreds of millions of ignorant, self-indugent people in the US and Western Civilization in general.

I’m really beginning to believe that there is no hope.

God help my daughters.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:32 pm 108. Battlecat:

German healthcare is better.

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:05 pm 109. Andrew Ian Dodge:

That was not the experience of my wife (who is English) when she broke her ankle…far from it.

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:46 pm 110. Spindok:

Perhaps she was treated with IV amoxicillin/clavulanate. That is more likely. They would discontinue that if they heard of a penicillin allergy.

Penicillin is still a great drug but not what you should use first in a toxic individual with presumed community aquired pneumonia presenting as you heard here.

This story does not fit. It is not about socialized medicine vs unsocialized medicine. It has nothing to do with neocons who are so far peripheral to this discussion that the author is IMO discredited for even using the term.

One individual has survived a critical illness and thank goodness for that. Yet the story presented by her friend attempts a lame connection between that and “bet it wouldnt happen in Texas -right?”.

I read the british medical journals sometimes. Full of great cost saving tips now called ‘evidence based medicine’. The Coroprate Suits over here push the same bitter pills but the medical and research communities keep pushing harder here. Not much original anymore from the UK – just meta-analysis.

(Yawn)

Spindok

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:49 pm 111. Andrew Ian Dodge:

I forgot to link to wife’s blog.Here is her NHS series.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:40 pm 112. therealist:

But if you were dissatisfied with the NHS, what’s your recourse? The US has a very flawed marketplace for health care full of ridiculous mandates, greedy insurance companies, sky-high liabilities, fraud and cost overruns, etc. There is huge room for improvement. But at the end of the day, it’s still a marketplace. Don’t like your doctor? Your hospital? Your medication? Your insurance? Then you can get rid of them and get whatever you want. Can you do that in a government-run health care system? Or have you instead put your life and death decisions in the hands of a bureaucrat?

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:47 pm 113. B.P.T.:

I lived in the UK for 18 months, and the hospitals were disgusting.
They were dirty, and thanks to recent news we now know that some of the doctors have fake qualifications. Some are terrorists. I’m glad one person had afun time, but can we hear the whole story? I’d also add that the waiting lists to visit a dentist are terrible too. Never ask a poor Londoner to smile.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:48 pm 114. Sam Duncan:

“All it does is shift who pays.”

No. It’s worse than that.

It shifts who’s paid, too. Taxes don’t go straight to the hospitals. The NHS is at the mercy of the Chancellor, not the patients. And of course, being a government operation, fincance is debt-based: a budget is set at the beginning of the year; if it isn’t all spent at the end of it, next year’s is cut – no arguing. If it is spent, it might be increased.

It makes healthcare a political monopoly. It’s “planned”. So when that planning goes wrong – such as here in 2003, all hell breaks loose. There is no alternative to take up the slack.

It devalues healthcare. GPs’ surgeries are overwhelmed with people who simply shouldn’t be there. People value their health less because the NHS will sort them out. (It never ceases to amaze me how much average Americans know about drugs and treatments – here, it’s “their” job to know all that; we just take what we’re given.)

There’s no redress for poor service (short of actual criminal malpractice). What are we going to do? Refuse to pay? Since we pay through our taxes, that’s very illegal indeed.

Ms. Gould isn’t entirely wrong. The NHS does heal and cure millions of people every year – my own parents owe their lives to NHS hospitals. But it would be a pretty poor collection of doctors and nurses that didn’t. The trouble is, they do it despite being employed by a state monopoly, not because of it.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:41 pm 115. John Moore:

I know the US system and it is terribly flawed. The tie between employment and insurance is an abomination. Only the very healthy can get decent insurance on their own, and risk losing it if they get ill.

Most Americans, covered by their company insurance, or young and healthy, have no idea how fragile their situation really is. Those who save for retirement have a good chance of losing it all to a medical problem before they qualify for Medicare.

Get seriously ill and you probably lose your job. Then you lose your insurance (maybe 18 months later if you can afford Cobra with no income). All of a sudden, your health care gets dramatically more expensive. You pay as much as ten times what the insurance company would pay!. I had a charge last year for $5000 that was satisfied by $480 from the insurance company. If I hadn’t had insurance, I would have had the whole thing.

I have a friend who became chronically ill, and had his private health insurance rates raised over and over again until they were unsustainable. Then he went bankrupt (after spending $500,000 of his own money).

A total government monopoly on health care in the US would also be a disaster, and as others pointed out, would deprive the whole world of medical innovation.

Something in between is needed. We need universal insurance coverage – whether it be by government (as the elderly have) or (preferably) by private companies regulated in such a way that the insurance is available to all – even the sick. This probably also means that mandatory insurance coverage is needed, and government aid for those who cannot afford it.

This will happen, one way or another. The political drive is too strong. I can hardly wait.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:02 pm 116. harry:

It is obvious both sides of the Universal Healthcare argument have valid arguments. It is obvious both have drawbacks. Those in favor must realize that people will use it needlessly. Staff will be vastly overworked, even more than now. Their earnings will have a lower ceiling because gov’t will control prices. Within time though the prices will rise and we’ll be back in the same boat we’re in now. Be reminded in socialist countries people paid from their pockets for special care for their loved ones. So if your mom was in a hospital you gave the doctor money and the nurse money to insure prompt service (TIPS). It doesn’t take a genius to know our system is broken. Higher and higher insurance costs are killing us and our businesses. Just ask GM. Our quasi-socialist system allows the poor and non-citizens free healthcare. They cannot be refused. Some use ambulances as a taxi service. I know this from a person who worked for EMS in NYC. They feigned illness and when they arrived near their destination wanted to leave the ambulance. Of course the EMT’s could not refuse. Free taxi service. People’s abuse of the system causes the honest to pay higher rates. But let’s not limit the breakdown to dishonest patients. Doctors do their share of shenanigans. And let’s not forget the ambulances chasers who sue sue sue. The gov’t with its infinte regulations are also part of the problem. Drug companies and doctors who prescribe needless pills that only mask the problem are also to blame. Salaries are partly to blame. Universal healthcare takes care of a lot of these problems. One solution might be to seek medical help only when absolutely needed. Those who abuse the system must be prosecuted but then how much more will it cost for oversight? Perhaps not seeking a doctor may actually keep one healthier. Think of all those pills not being taken. Pills may help one way and screw you up in other ways. Perhaps a broadening of catastrophic insurance policies may lower the cost overall. But it’s damn hard to find. Brokers probably don’t make much money on them and are reluctant to sign people up. Even then why would you pay $300 a month for nothing? If it were $100 it would be worthwhile. Those who have families and sick children must pay for insurance and the cost is enormous! They have to work so hard just to keep up. For their sake there should be a Universal system. Taking all these factors into consideration it probably is better we had a Universal Healthcare system. Unfortunately as humans do they will find ways to abuse the system until that system is also broken. Let’s hope that takes many years from now.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:28 pm 117. David Thomson:

“Your insurance? Then you can get rid of them and get whatever you want.”

That is illegal in probably all fifty states. The government mandates insurance companies to cover the costs of politically favored medicines and services. Cafeteria styled policies are simply not allowed. One must purchase a policy that is comparable to an auto insurance covering your car washes, oil changes, and tune ups.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:05 pm 118. Dave:

This is how the left deludes people into thinking that socialism is wonderful. Find an anecdotal story (its especially wonderful if you can attribute it to a conservative) and get the “emo” crowd to eat it.

When you separate people completely from the economic reality of their decisions, they will spend (other peoples money) like drunk sailors.

Setup a safety net for the poor through clinics and subsidized catastrophic insurance and let everyone else pay 1) the first $2000-$4000 and 2) get a catastrophic policy. If you don’t think that will effect life style decisions and help control costs while creating incentive to provide high quality care, you are not seeing this issue clearly.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:08 pm 119. cedarford:

rj:
To William Keller:
You said it perfectly about giving up our freedoms. Government healthcare for a country of our size would destroy our healthcare system.

No it wouldn’t because country after country with tens or hundreds of millions of citizens can hack it. Saying we are “too big” for “dang gummint” to do anything infers that we cannot have other well-functioning parts of government doing things like build and maintain an interstate highway system, have a military….

Cara – my insurance paid the bill except for the 20 dollar copay. The hospital was equipped to do the paparwork, just as the UK hospital filled out papers for their system. There is always paperwork.

Hooray for traditional US medical care.

Hooray if you have an employer that foots it (government workers have the best care outside doctors and CEOs – with prisoners, illegals, and indigents getting lesser but still free Totalcare).

For the 1/7th of the population now trending to 1/5th whose employers refuse healthcare bennies, and for the private coverage people banned from deducting what wealthy Owners get to deduct…no Hoorays.
Just more and more Americans hearing at work that big cutbacks must happen “in order to compete better with China”, entry level deliberately hired as “temp” to avoid dental and med coverage…or self-employed seeing healthcare reaching 610 for one person or 1100 a month for a family with no dental and no deductability unless they are “business owners with 15 or more employees”.

No hoorays for that. Nor is health insurance an ideological litmus test of a “Real Republican”.
Though “real republican” prisoners, illegals, and welfare recipients – as well as the wealthiest who get it all deductable and gratis do like “our best in the world, deal”.

Because of waste, duplication, and an army of lawyers, insurers, and excessive “doctor-medical professional entrepreneur compensation” – we have a 50% higher per capita cost of healthcare than Germany, with a lower life expectancy.

We are also the only advanced nation with the phenomena of widespread medical bankruptcies. One million filed a year. Many through no fault or poor health –

Like my aunt, who was hit by an Israeli in Florida on a tourist visa, suffered spinal damage, and lost her brokerage account, her job …and came close to having all her other savings taken by bill collectors from the “best in the world!!!” medical caregivers – before we could get her out of state and the Loi-Yahs erect safety devices. Collectors, we discovered, that included relatives of the Israeli that broadsided her while talking on his cell phone….

Republicans have long been on both sides of this and it would be as stupid a “litmus test” for them as a “no niggers or hispanics allowed” rule of party membership to now say they are against the universal health care leaders like Nixon, Romney, Taft, Schultz said we must strive for to appease the hardline “Freedom!!” ideologues.
Nixon was the 1st to propose it. He lost a brother to TB because his family could not afford care. He said we cannot protect America with a military and yet remain comfortable that over 10,000 Americans die each year because they have no health coverage and either expire untreated or die from a condition allowed to advance past the point of being able to save them.

Now we are up to 18,000 Americans dying from lack of health insurance each year and a million medically driven bankruptcies. In the last 10 years, we have maintained that the loss of 3,000 people over that time to Terrahist Evildoers is unacceptable, yet we accept 160,000 to 180,000 Americans dying from lack of access to health coverage. Something that France or Canada or Japan would never do – and which disgusts similarly advanced nations about America.
When we were spending 100 billion a year plus, rebuilding Iraq, after security and electricity, the 3rd highest priority they put on our spending was rebuilding the medical infrastructure and getting a universal health care system as good as the Israelis or Saudis have.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:33 pm 120. cedarford:

therealist – Don’t like your doctor? Your hospital? Your medication? Your insurance? Then you can get rid of them and get whatever you want. Can you do that in a government-run health care system? Or have you instead put your life and death decisions in the hands of a bureaucrat?

I cannot get rid of my hospital. It is the only one within 50 miles. I cannot shift meds, because my pitiful isurance dictates which generic they will cover. There are only 3 private insurers in my state – and they all offer roughly the same rates which increased 6-8% every year Bush was in office, plus steadily increasing “deductables” limits. You might actually say we have two insurers, because the 3rd only has a “caring caregiver network” based in the State’s Big City…130 miles from where we live.

Nor are people in other advanced nations stuck with a doctor that a bureaucrat selects. You get a primary care provider and can shift if the one you are steered to doesn’t cut it.

People “put your life and death decisions in the hands of a bureaucrat???” – no, in all the world’s other advanced nations, doctors make the calls and limits are imposed on coverage and larger decisions that do impact health care – like a rural trauma care center or dialysis for a person with advanced lung cancer are resource-determined. Rather than the US decision model of a bureaucrat bean counter employed by people wanting to make a profit off illness deciding if it is profitable or not do do the trauma center (almost always – no) or futile treatment on the dying (typically yes, because the American taxpayer now foots urgent end of life major expenses if no one else will)

“Can you do that in a government-run health care system?”

Typically, more modern nations still have a very large private enterprise system working with the Health Ministries as services and equipment providers – much of it more competitive and at a lower cost than the USA. (Healthcare and drugs are 50% more per capita in America than in Japan and most European countries – and that includes all those 1/6th of Americans excluded from care).

Lets add another filthy little feature of the Free Market for Freedom Lovers! US system. If you are poor, excluded from health insurance by a pre-existing condition in yourself or family member…many doctors will cut you a break. Even drug companies. But not hospitals or nursing homes, which actually charge uninsured patients 40-60% more than insured ones or those protected by Government medicare and medicaid -because individual Americans “neglected” to negotiate the discounts in cost and charges that gov’t on behalf of it’s present wards & insurance companies and their lawyers negotiate for their clients..

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:16 pm 121. jonesy55:

“When I am in the UK I always find this discussion interesting because many over there and I suspect in the US as well, still cling to the thought that the uninsured in the US don’t get care. Anyone that has been to an American Emergency room knows this is bogus as its loaded with uninsured people getting care. They are stabilized and then sent to a County hospital where they get the same treatment as those insured. Less convenient yes, less service no.”

and so the argument that ‘I don’t want to pay for somebody else’s healthcare’ doesn’t really seem valid as it already happens it seems. Those uninsured people getting treated just means that the cost gets passed to the insured via higher premiums.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:38 pm 122. jonesy55:

“If the surgeon cuts off the wrong limb in the UK, can you sue them? Get granted 50 million pounds or some such non-sense?”

Yes, indeed you can, not that this is neccesarily a good thing.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:41 pm 123. jonesy55:

“Hmmm…let’s see. Gould estimates that $1 million was spent on the care of her friend. There are 300 million Americans. For everyone to get that kind of care would be $300 TRILLION. That is larger than the economy of the entire planet.”

If a nation were so unlucky that every one of its citizens became this ill in the same year then I think it would bankrupt whatever system was in place, the insurance industry couldn’t pay out $300trn any more than the government could.

Luckily it aint gonna happen.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:48 pm 124. jonesy55:

“German healthcare is better.”

Probably. There does seem to be a bit of a straw man argument going on with some comments here, as if the UK system is the best universal healthcare system available and so any faults must be applicable to universal healthcare in general.

The fact is that several other countries have better systems than we do while still having universal coverage.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:52 pm 125. jonesy55:

“People value their health less because the NHS will sort them out. (It never ceases to amaze me how much average Americans know about drugs and treatments – here, it’s “their” job to know all that; we just take what we’re given.)”

Is this true? After all, the average Brit lives longer than the average American.

I know that whenever I see a doctor I do my research first so that I have a good idea about what the likely options are going to be.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:56 pm 126. Brian:

“The fact is that several other countries have better systems than we do while still having universal coverage.”

And some citizens in some countries also hand over 50-60% of their paychecks to the government. The US system has flaws that need to be addressed, no doubt. But a government system is definitely NOT the answer. The govenment has proven time and again it is incabable of such an undertaking. I do not want the government making my decisions for me. I pay $600 per month for insurance out of my own pocket for a family of 4, and would gladly continue doing so to keep the government out of the loop.
40 million uninsured? How many are uninsured by choice? Most people in the 20 year old range, young and healthy simply choose not to have it. A insurance policy at this age is inexpensive.
The poor have medicare available and are as such insured.
The problem here are those which are in the middle class which have preexisting conditions. This need to be addressed. Fix the problem, dont ditch the entire system.

Jan 16, 2009 - 4:34 am 127. Jonesy55:

Brian, yes some countries do pay higher taxes but not really because of healthcare I think. I don’t think that there is any country with universal healthcare that pays more than 10% of GDP for it.

Countries with overall public sector spending approaching 50% of GDP, i’m thinking Sweden, Denmark, France and Belgium, spend much more of their money on redistributive tax-benefit systems than on healthcare.

There are countries like Japan who have both good universal healthcare and an overall public spend in the 30-35% range like the US.

Jan 16, 2009 - 5:37 am 128. D.R, Moore:

I would like to agree with the Neo-C, Britain and Europe will need all the health care it can get in the next 10 years. Their will be an unbelievable rash of knee problems, being forced to get down on the prayer rug 5 times a day, or kneeling before the supreme leader who controls all of the energy Putin.

Jan 16, 2009 - 6:22 am 129. dave742:

Dave:
“This is how the left deludes people into thinking that socialism is wonderful. Find an anecdotal story…and get the ‘emo’ crowd to eat it.”

This is projection. It is the right that continually uses anectodal stories to defend the US health care system. Every systematic study ever done comparing health care systems (or significant issues petaining to them) has the US coming out at or near the bottom. Find me a single study that shows the US at or near the top. It doesn’t exist.

Many people here have mentioned wait times. This is a very difficult thing to compare, because “there is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S.”:

businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/tc20070621_716260_page_2.htm

European countries, however, do keep systematic records for wait times. Isn’t weird that the US is so much better in this category, but they don’t bother to keep records in order to show it is true? Anyway, read the article above, and the following as well, concerning wait times:

businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm

But maybe you’ll say Business Week is just a leftist rag.

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:58 am 130. Seerak:

No surprise here. Conservatives, neo- or otherwise, are ignorant of the nature of freedom at best, and are its enemies at their most consistent.

And again: socialized medicine fails *because it is socialized*. That is the defect in the system. The failure of such systems originate in their essential defining characteristic, not in details of implementation! Rat poison milkshakes don’t “work” because they are made with rat poison, not because they were mixed wrong or sold in the wrong color cup.

Of course, that assumes that your goal was to make a milkshake; if you *wanted* to sicken and kill people, rat poison milkshakes are a roaring success. Similarly, if your *goal* is to expand government power rather than deliver good healthcare, socialized medicine can then be called “successful”.

And just as a well-crafted rat poison milkshake can taste wonderful and yield a pleasant full feeling before you start feeling ill, socialized medicine has a “honeymoon” phase before the reality of doctor brain drains, rationing, wait lines, and bureaucratic nightmare sets in.

I am a Canadian expatriate for many reasons, and this is one of them. I rarely see dishonesty as acute as I do among American advocates of socialized medicine, who love to pretend that Canadian and British newspapers do not exist on the Internet.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:12 am 131. Rational Joe:

This article is narrow-minded (you only see your own experience and you are judging the system based on that experience) and 100% biased towards a system that takes everybody’s money by force to fund government health care (wealth redistribution for a so-called good cause). A rational conservative would have taken into account the objective principle a NHS versus a Market driven HS. But since you are not rational I will state them. A HS that is market driven must gain the trust of the insured to receive their business and the insured is personally responsible for the choice of care they want, meaning they have the control to recommend or terminate a provider based on the responsibility and accountability the provider is giving. This of course is the principle of a market driven HS, not the reality which is deeply flawed. Let us look at the principle of a NHS, which is funded by your tax dollars. You lose your choice to find a better HS if you believe you are not getting the care you deserve. One size fits all. Responsibility and Accountability become cliche as there is not an incentive to hold them (competition for your dollar). Whether or not you believe a NHS is the direction we (America) should go towards is really not the issue. The issue is understanding the principles of wealth redistribution versus personal responsibility. This is what is at stake when we argue of such things. I believe most Americans are uncomfortable with someone else making health decisions over their lives.

What Ms. Gould should have done when writing this article is to list along with her NHS experience is the horrible situations caused by a NHS. She should have listed some potential fixes that would help reduce the real concerns in most peoples’ minds about the system. I think if this would have been done, we could have more rational dialog and understanding on how to fix the problematic American HS.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:19 am 132. wormburner:

There is no debate to be had here. Both sides realize that health care is going to break employers and or employees over the next 15 to 20 years. Not good for all involved.

I’m not sure what the best remedy is, but this issue is best dealt with before we really start to feel the real hit.

I’m in favor of a Gov sponsored accrual system. One where every US citizen has a couple years of coverage at 18. Then as you work, you can add to it, say 1 year of coverage for every 5 years worked. Then you can use it as you like. We could make it beneficial for employers by covering new employees for the first year, so when that person is fully trained and making money for the Co., the company picks them up with tax break offsets. Employees in this system wouldn’t have to worry as much about layoffs and could make good long term career decisions without being dictated by medical coverage. I think a system like this would only lubricate the free market.

I would pay for some of this by slapping an additional 20% tax on alcohol, tobacco, all junk food, and all fast food. If you don’t want to pay, then don’t use those products. The more you don’t use those products, the less you cost the system.

We also need to realize that, like banks, insurance companies can will increasingly have an impact on the economy. Regulation is need to separate medical decisions from financial ones, as best we can. In a way, most medical decision don’t make sense from a financial standpoint anyways. FI, if I lopped off my finger and its going to cost 100K to reattach it, would I take a 50K payoff to live without a finger? The short answer is, YES! Thats a new boat for 1 lousy finger. Also, does a 700K surgery make sense for a 70 year old? On paper, No. If it were my grandfather? Absolutely. Is that 70 YO going to repay that 700K with productivity? No.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:40 am 133. momof3:

Somoene tell me why, again, healthcare is a right? Why do people believe they should get this on other people’s dime? I pay for my insurance. And a LOT of those “40 million uninsured” americans still own houses and drive 2 cars in their family, and have cell phones and 10 pairs of shoes. So it’s not so much that they can’t afford it, it’s that they’d rather have all this other stuff! Life is prioritizing your money. Can’t afford the 4 bedroom home and the insurance? Buy a smaller house, or rent. Cut down to one car, or live where you can use public transit or carpool. And if your type II diabetes is a preexisting problem for you, lose some damn weight! Don’t smoke! Healthcare costs will never go down as long as 1) illegals get all the free care they want and 2) people take no responsibility for using common sense and maintaining their own health in the known preventable ways.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:50 am 134. dave742:

momof3:
“Somoene tell me why, again, healthcare is a right?”

It has to do with human emotions like empathy and compassion; things that are lacking in US culture. Although most Americans cannot understand this, the rest of the world does. An example of this is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US doesn’t like this Convention, because it says that children have the right to things like health care and food. These are things that America cannot stand behind. That is why every country in the world has ratified this convention, excvept for two: the US and Somalia. I am so proud.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:23 am 135. TL:

Wormburner, you say there is “no debate to be had here.” Funny point for a comment that is the 132nd posted and disagrees with so many of the other posts that favor freedom over socialism.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:31 am 136. TL:

So, dave742, most Americans lack your superior sense of empathy and compassion and your unique ability to understand the issues. Thank heavens you’re here to help us with that and tell us what to do. Should we just send all of our money to you since you are so much fairer and smarter? Anything you say master.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:49 am 137. Fat Man:

Proves nothing Mil would have received the same level of care, or better at any major hospital in the US.

The author should also explain why she did not try to make contact with a third party who could have gone to the victims residence after their second phone conversation.

Jan 16, 2009 - 12:02 pm 138. momof3:

Yes, Dave, once your country has been run over by the muslims whom you so compasionately welcomed and empathized with, and gave in to, and allowed sharia law for, please write again and tell us how superior you are. I’m assuming it will come in the email where your country once again begs for our superior military to save your ass.

Were I on the phone with even a mere aquaintance, and knew they were ill, and they were incoherent, I would have called 911 to get a welfare check done. And no doubt lessened the burden on the great free medical system ya’ll have, by catching her before she was at death’s door. I assume I would have done much more for a friend. In fact, I did, for a homeless guy on the street. Damn, I wish I had some empathy….but maybe you all have no homeless there either, aye Dave?

Jan 16, 2009 - 12:39 pm 139. dave742:

TL:
To begin with, the idea that universal health care would cost more money has no basis in reality. All first world countries that have universal health care pay less than the US does. By adopting their systems, there is every reason to believe that the cost would decrease. The only ones who would suffer monitarily would be those companies within the health care industry. The same industry that floods the nation with propaganda that those on the right obediantly parrot.
I am not supporting universal health care because I would benefit from it financially. I work for a pharmaceutical company, and make an excellent wage. My life could be greatly affected by universal health care, because the pharma companies may no longer be able to rape the public, and maybe my raises would decrease. Again, my reasons have to do with empathy. I don’t expect you to understand.

Jan 16, 2009 - 12:43 pm 140. dave742:

momof3:
I’m not exactly sure what the hell you are talking about. I do not take homeless people into my house, if that’s what you were saying. If you do, I’m very happy for you.
I really don’t know what the issue of evil Muslims taking over the world has to do with universal health care. I guess I don’t understand all the various facets of this issue.

Jan 16, 2009 - 1:00 pm 141. Tony:

I think you in the U.S. believe you get a better deal when the reality is you do not. I read somewhere that health care for the average family costs $12,000 per year. Your property taxes are easily 4 times what I would pay in the UK, State tax, city tax, this tax and that tax. When I was working in the UK I averaged giving 33% of my salary to the government which covered state pension, health care, income tax etc etc. I found the tax levels were almost the same as my American friends.

However, they then had to pay health care taxes on top of that when mine were already paid for. Believe me you do not live in the land of the free you live in the land of the tax, the land of the that’ll be extra sir, the land of the 20% service charge for someone bringing your food to your table. I mean come on where does someone get off on expecting a 20% tip just to bring your food to your table, it’s a joke.

I love the U.S. but be under no delusions that it is a heavily taxed country. At least in the UK once you get your pay check you have health care. My average property tax/Council tax was $1800 a year, I have friends living in a 2 bed apartment 7 miles north of Chicago paying $5,000 that is a joke.

Jan 16, 2009 - 1:02 pm 142. Robert Hurley:

First question is is health care a right?

Second question – Would we same money by reducing overhead costs associated with insurnace companies need for profit if we had a single payer system?

Third questions – would companies be more compeittive globally if they did not have to pay for health care?

Fourth question – Could we come up with a system that gave everyone access to health care but kept doctors independent so they could control the decisions?

Jan 16, 2009 - 2:03 pm 143. Diane De Bernardo:

Great story and I’m glad it all turned out well. Still, let’s not forget this is health care rationing in which a person’s life is literally quantified in dollar figures. Ever hear of the term disability adjusted life years? That’s a sort of Hitlerian way health economists determine the value of a person’s life once a disability such as your friends sets in and could later on cause her to be denied health care. I remember a few years back when the NHS was denying breast cancer patients the most effective treatment because it was not cost effective. Plenty of stories also exist of people waiting a year or more for such surgeries as hernia operations, something that takes weeks to arrange here. Finally, how long will the British tax payer be able to continue to support such an expensive system (after all, they have budget deficits there, too)? Socialized health care is not free and yes, money did exchange hands even if you weren’t there to witnesses it. My guess is it will end in my lifetime. Finally, we also have the wide open boarder and such a system will become even more of a magnet than the current health system. Britain is an island far from the developing world and doesn’t face this issue.

Jan 16, 2009 - 3:04 pm 144. NahnCee:

What Americans deserve are a friend who will get up off her fat selfish ass when another friend calls in distress and *do* something. Don’t be talking to me about strep throat, you lazy cow, especially when she called the next day obviously hallucinating.

And I’m supposed to be paying for YOUR lazy and/or stupid selfishness!

Jan 16, 2009 - 4:40 pm 145. Gozer the Carpathian:

Honestly, it sounds all nice that you can go to the doctor whenever and not pay more than a copay. But seriously it’s the government in charge of your HEALTH! Tell me something the government is in control of YOUR life that it does well?

Your roads?

Your airwaves?

Your Taxes?

Your bank systems?

Your protection?

I defy anyone to come up with a government run program that runs WELL. Oh sure the IRS does a good job of taking our money and hunting down those who welch, but obviously they don’t always do it well. (Hello Treasury Secretary nominee.) I worry about nation healthcare turning into another Social Security, USCIS (United States Citzenship and Imigration Service), or DMV!

My wife is an Aussie and while she can tell me the good things. She also full admits to the bad. I’m sorry, I want no piece of that.

Jan 16, 2009 - 6:57 pm 146. Tinstaafl:

Don’t know if anyone else got this but NahnCee got to my response right away… Where the Hell were you???

Tins…

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:17 pm 147. pHdependentNeoCon:

“Not one penny has changed hands”

Oh yeah, I forgot…”free” healthcare is FREE!!…Gloriously, gloriously freeeeeee!!!! The healthcare literally falls from trees; but I recommend picking it from the trees before they fall, whilst the freeness of it is at its ripest and juiciest! Sorry, did that sound sarcastic?

Jan 16, 2009 - 8:48 pm 148. pHdependentNeoCon:

REALITY CHECK TIME:
I am a Ph.D. I met a German Ph.D. at a meeting who is a professor at Cambridge, UK. He told me how he had a bad toothache, went to the oral surgeon, and the surgeon said to him “yeah, that has to come out right away”. My colleague said, “great, when can I see you next?” “Oh, in about SIX MONTHS” was the reply. He flew to Germany the next week and had the tooth extracted. Yeah, great care in the UK.

Jan 16, 2009 - 8:58 pm 149. Josh:

Health care does not equal health insurance or health payment. At no point in this story do you ever mention where you believe the care is better, you simply point out where there would be more paperwork.

I’m not dismissing legitimate concerns about paying for expensive health care, however these concerns are not the same as receiving health care.

Furthermore, the tone of your article is so naive or ignorant it defies belief. You write that “In the United States Mil’s mountain of drugs, equipment support, tubes, disposables, gallons of intravenous feeds and Jevity liquid food, plus plain old man and woman hours would have cost close to $1 million by now.” Guess what it costs the equivalent of $1 million dollars in the UK as well. Just because the government is paying doesn’t mean something is free.

You assume throughout this piece that something paid for by the government is free. Your comments also imply that your friend would be without health insurance in the US. Health care costs money no matter where you live and in either case the individual pays. In the UK they take it from their residents with higher taxes with a higher top marginal rate that kicks it at a much lower income than in the United States. Combine this with a very regressive consumption tax and you have a much higher effective tax rate on income than in the US. The difference is that in the US we have choices for health insurance.

The US system is imperfect. There are far too many people without health insurance and the system allows for far too much waste in its current form. However, there is little evidence that a model on government funded one size fits all healthcare is the solution.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:02 pm 150. cedarford:

dave742:
momof3:
“Somoene tell me why, again, healthcare is a right?”

It has to do with human emotions like empathy and compassion; things that are lacking in US culture. Although most Americans cannot understand this, the rest of the world does.

Dave, I take exception to your “most Americans” cannot understand this..remark. We actually lead the world in the “sum” of individual and private charity giving. We do have a well-developed sense though of merit – we think hard work should be rewarded and we hate the idea of the unworthy getting from the worthy. Even socialist countries battle this – the hatred of leeches at the top or bottom scamming and feeding off the productive contributors. The Soviets called it “social parasitism – and made it a crime from top to bottom of their society..from vagabond drunks expecting a free meal and place to live in perpetuity to Jews and Chechens crime rings doing no work, but diverting goods into the black market.

You are right about Momof3, however. She takes those deficiencies in empathy, justice, solidarity with fellow American citizens, and compassion – right into the pathological.

She all but whacks off to her beloved US military and how they serve her RIGHT to be secure, even with taxpayers that also pay out but hate a few of the wars we got mired in, odious nations it costs them money to subsidize, and what they think is massive DOD waste and gold-plating of procurement.. No doubt she loves that her 3 kids have a RIGHT to a public education, a RIGHT to be a State & Fed income tax deduction for her or her husbands pay, she has a RIGHT to court, a RIGHT to expect zoning laws are enforced to preserve her home values. And she has a RIGHT not to expect her property taxes to be double or triple that of a person that is almost completely self-reliant, only lives there half the year…or has no kids or who otherwise is not a heavy consumer of state and local services. Of course, she has a RIGHT to drive on roads that the state built by taking sacred private property from some Freedom-Lover!! Them and other infrastructure she enjoys but paid no taxes on built before here time or in other states, municipalities that subsidize her…And she has a RIGHT to expect that her employer will not deduct 5 times as much pay for insurance coverage for her family of 5 as for the single, homosexual worker next to her doing the same job.

No, Mom of 3 is sadly in the minority Dave742 alluded to. Devoid of empathy or compassion. Of and FOR the rights of others, but all government services she has, all the subsidized by others bennies her kids enjoy –well those are all True Rights.

And the rest, her Freedom-Loving hard work’s fruits she wants no gummint to “steal from her and give to others”.

I personally no longer have any relatives in what are thought to be the top 12 terrorist geographical targets. Yet I care. They have a RIGHT to expect others not in danger zones to help pay for their security. The money I and others spend on people I don’t know in places I never visited to pay for cops or soldiers that may be unecessary and certainly of no personal benefit to me…..

Is not “stealing from me”.
I also care that 180,000 Americans died in the last 10 years from lack of medical insurance, from being denied it because of a pre-existing condition. That is a lot more than the 4,000 or so dead from “evildoers, the trillions Momof3 exhorts as needed for her beloved government heroes that “keep her safe”. I believe they have a RIGHT to basic safety from being physically or financially destroyed by disease or accident, most no fault of theirs…Momof3, believing her Freedom!! – Sweet Freedom!! -is threatened by others wanting RIGHTs she believes she and hers don’t need included in their tidy little package of their RIGHTs and subsidies she and hers get from taxpayers and fellow employees for goods and services they have no use for, but Momof3 does….

It is all about a thankfully dying sort of Alice Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand) cultist surrounded by middle class up to quite wealthy folk’s subsidies and government services acting completely self-centered and calling their denying of RIGHTs and services to others that they think they do not benefit from – terming that “Freedom-Loving!!”

I don’t want parasitism to flourish – But I do want a basic safety net for hard-working citizens of all income strata. I want kids, not just mine, but all kids to get some subsidy from all of society as a future investment, not crush their parents and parents alone with each and every cost they incur. I want the genuinely helpless and people in need from no fault of their own – but age, a cancer, or a crippling accident or crime to be cared for by society as a whole. I do not want a society run on “pay as you go, or possibly even die in abandonment if you can’t afford it” Social Darwinism or Rand’s Nazi-like Herrenvolk and Herdenvolk worldview.

RIGHTS are whatever We The People of the Unbited States care to define them to be.

Now, after all too many hundreds of thousands of deaths from lacking universal health care, after the embarassment America has in the eyes of other nations with longer life expectancies and around 50% less per capita in societal health care costs….We The People are about to add a new RIGHT…….
Joining all the advanced nations of Europe, Asia, and Canada, Australia,Israel. Plus certain less advanced Latin American and Caribbean nations.

Read it and weep, Momof3. If you don’t like it, you are free to move to a more backward corner of the Earth where almost everything is pay as you go…The “Freedom-Lovers!!” of Yemen, Paraguay, Afghanistan..for example. I like my Freedom!! as much as the next person, but Freedom!! comes with responsibilities and an expectation that as a Republic, we expect all our citizens to work for the common good. That is not “socialism” – it is what the Founders called “Our Christian Duty”. What Lincoln called the sacrifices needed to give liberty and security to all. What soldiers in danger overseas fight for others & not personal gain and enrichment. Under a common flag in an indivisable Republic, not at all guided by Russian Alice Rosenbaum’s words “that which government does not give me as a fair return on my payment, is stolen from me”.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:47 pm 151. Carol Gould:

Dave 742 ( message 129)
You have hit the nail on the head: I am anything but Leftist but can see how the ‘non-Socialist’ system is ruining millions of people as we breathe. Whether it is the NHS or the post office, trains or banking system, government intervention or control is now an inevitable fact of life.
I myself have seen every ‘clever investment’ I made in my 20s and into which I put my meagre and hard-earned cash only end up tanking in 2003-2004. I have read the comments on my article and still feel a ’socialised’ system is best. My neighbour here in London is on seven medications a day and he uses a ‘Prepayment Certificate’ which enables him to have all of his pills for about £100 a year all-in. At his request I priced his medications in an American drugstore when I was over there and he would be paying nearly $1,000 a month for the same drugs, even discounted at that particular pharmacy chain. How anyone can begrudge the NHS taking our British tax money is beyond comprehension, when the football star Kaka is being traded to Manchester City for £100 million and the CEOs of the rogue City investment firms and banks continue to be drawing vast salaries. If the British public would get as het up about these issues and not moan about how much the NHS is costing I will be content.
I know first-hand from American friends and relatives that ‘hospital liens’ and botched operations in state hospitals have ruined their lives when here in the UK we have this magnificent system that kicked in when my friend was near death.
I spoke to her this morning and she says she owes her life to the teamwork at St Mary’s. She says she keeps thinking about how she might have died had she been on holiday to the USA and someone might have dithered over her insurance coverage as she lay dying…

Jan 17, 2009 - 4:17 am 152. Tolbert:

Again, Ms. Gould, spare us the ancedotes.

“Hospital lien”?, you mean a personal debt that is owed because of services received? Damn those evil Doctors and Hospitals for thinking they should be paid for their efforts.

“Botched Operations”? as if those don’t happen in your “magnificent NHS”, or any other system on the face of the earth.

What you are trying to assert is your sense of moral superiority.

“She says she keeps thinking about how she might have died had she been on holiday to the USA and someone might have dithered over her insurance coverage as she lay dying”

Is there a more bizarre logical construction than one in which you have a fear of your life because another country, of which you a not a citizen, doesn’t have the same insurance system as your home country? Then just don’t visit. Problem solved!

You complain about your personal financial losses and heap bile upon others that by good fortune or dint of effort have enjoyed more success than yourself. This is why you cheer for a socialized system, so that you can be protected from the vicissitudes of this mortal existence.

Jan 17, 2009 - 6:41 am 153. susan:

“Is this true? After all, the average Brit lives longer than the average American.”

and the average italian lives longer than the average british

it’s genetics and lifestyle stupid, nothing to do with healthcare system.

Jan 17, 2009 - 7:36 am 154. jonesy55:

Susan, so that seems to negate the argument that a private system makes people take better care of their own health through healthy lifestyles doesn’t it? Which if you read the post to which I was replying was the point I was making.

“Finally, how long will the British tax payer be able to continue to support such an expensive system (after all, they have budget deficits there, too)?”

How many times does it have to be repeated that the British NHS is NOT an expensive system by any international comparison and costs less than half per person compared to the US system.

Jan 17, 2009 - 9:04 am 155. Ian Thorpe:

Sorry you had to see it from close quarters to understand how universal health care works Carol.

There are a number of things zero – tax nuts don’t understand about publicly funded health systems though. They are NOT free, the care they offer does not constiute “handouts to the feckless.” Everybody pays a little so that a catastrophic illness like your friend’s does not leave a family with the agonising choice of bankrupting themselves or opting for only palliative care.

What kind of people would we be if we said “to hell with people who can’t pay, I’ll take care of myself.” Not a very christian attitude is it from a people so many of whom are so eager to rant about their one on one relationship with Jesus.

One last point, would the people who sumgly made delusional comments to the effect that American’s are wealthier than British people care to explain to me why I am making regular contributions to two American friends, one in the North East, one in Texas, to help with their bills while both these well qualified profesionals are unable to work? It wouldn’t happen in heathen, communist Europe. There are sbuses of the system of course but that is a small price to pay for the security our inclusive societies give us and nothing to get paranoid about.

I hope your friend is doing well and makes a good recovery.

Jan 17, 2009 - 9:16 am 156. Sledgewig:

Mixed sex wards. No thanks.

Jan 17, 2009 - 11:03 am 157. Jeff Weimer:

Health care is necessary, but it is NOT the responsibility of government to deliver it, it is YOURS. Just because it is free (or cheap) at the “retail” end, does not mean it is free.

I don’t understand those who think the profit motive is wasted money in service to avarice. The thought that removing profit will save a significant amount of money while maintaining or increasing care goes against human nature. Look at medical procedures not (commonly) paid by third party money, such as corrective eye surgery. The prices for procedures have dropped to year for year to ensure business, while the efficacy and follow up have increased in order to build reputation and more business. Contrast that to the current disconnect with patients and payment in our current AND “nationalized health care” regimes. Costs just continue to rise, or services drop to the point where hospitals deny beds due to lack of funds, ambulances are required to wait in order to meet hospitals’ ability to treat patients to an arbitrary standard they couldn’t normally meet with the budgeted capability, and the months or years wait for non-emergency procedures that leave the patients in severe pain while they wait, such as knee replacement.

Can we come up with a better system? Yes. do we need to subsume it to direct government administration? no. Do we need to put the cost of many of the routine medical transactions on the user of the services? I think so. Do we need insurance for catastrophic and/or expensive care the user can’t afford? Yes. Do we need to ensure those who have neither the resources to pay directly or have insurance get emergency care? Sure, but we need not incentivize NOT having insurance. how to do that, I don’t know. Just not make it free for everyone just to help those that can’t afford it.

Jan 17, 2009 - 11:47 am 158. Jeff Weimer:

I forgot, Should insurance be tied to your job? Absolutely not. Can it be? Sure – but remember that it’s gone after you leave that job.

Jan 17, 2009 - 11:57 am 159. momof3:

Hey cedarford: I pay my taxes. I also PAY MY INSURANCE! Therefor, I GET healthcare. If I felt I’d rather spend my money on things other than healthcare, like so many americans, I could still pop into any ER and get rteated for any little old thing I wished, for free. Or, at least, for free to me.

No, I do not believe that just by existing, you have a right to be fed and cared for healthwise. And it’s funny that so many other countries have signed that little rights of children treaty, but have many, many more starving and uncared for kids than we do. Perhaps more should walk the walk, instead of just talking about it?

And I damn sure don’t think anyone has the right to drop MY level of care, so that more people can get shittier care. I like my insurance, with my drs. I do not want a medicare-quality clinic caring for me or mine. And that’s exactly what government-run care would be. Taking everyone’s care to the lowest common denominator, so that we can all be “equal”. Yeah, libs, that makes sense!

Everything in that article points to her friend being alive in spite of everything that happened, not to great care like the author wants to pretend.

What I really hear, is people whining that they have to pay for services. SHould restaurants feed you for free? HEll, why should you have to pay for a taxi-ride? pay your own rent? Nah, that’s what gum-mint’s for!

PROUDLY vile and cold-hearted, here. I prefer my charity to be done willingly, not government-forced. And I’ve yet to have a year when my charitable-giving receipts were less than 10% of our gross income. Any more, and the tax-guy says we’re risking audit. I think we’re doing pretty damn good over here, to be so damn selfish.

Jan 17, 2009 - 12:45 pm 160. Paul:

The author has lived in the UK for decades and somehow makes a case for socialized medicine in the US.This is a serious case of journalistic malpractice.The occurence she describes is an average case in any decent hospital.To really understand the catastrophy of socialized medicine one needs to talk to people in small towns and villaqes of the UK.Has she gone and asked these people? No ,but I did, as I lived partly in the UK village and worked as an MD in the US.The picture is not pretty as the public has no knowledge of modern medicine and blindly accepts what the system tells them.The medicine practiced in the UK countryside was approximately 30-40 years behind the care we gave to our patients in the US in the early 90’s.One neurosurgical collegue studying the NHS disagreed saying it was more like 50 years.I can not go into specifics of each case I heard about but it was sad and pathetic that such seamingly advanced and once proud country would offer her people such care.Finally my British born wife gave up and became a proud US citizen and as we became affraid to get sick in the UK we moved permanently to the US.Going back to the author ,she is a prime example why journalism is at such a low level of quality and esteem of the public.

Jan 17, 2009 - 1:12 pm 161. jonesy55:

“To really understand the catastrophy of socialized medicine one needs to talk to people in small towns and villaqes of the UK.Has she gone and asked these people? No ,but I did, as I lived partly in the UK village and worked as an MD in the US.The picture is not pretty as the public has no knowledge of modern medicine and blindly accepts what the system tells them”

I presume that you are taking the p*ss? As a person who lives in a ’small town or village’ in the UK, what you say does not correspond with the reality that I see around me. Indeed, the routine healthcare in many typical rural and small town areas is often better than in the bigger cities and certainly people live longer and healthier lives. The patronising tone of your post is incredible.

Of course highly specialised units are often based in big cities as is the case across the world. The main complaint of GPs these days seems to be that patients come armed with too much information from the internet and have an expectation of what they should be diagnosed and treated with before they even see the doctor. That doesn’t seem to correspond with your claim that these rural troglodytes have no idea that the stethoscope has been invented.

If your claims are true that most British people have no idea what modern healthcare even means and that the NHS provides such a terrible service, how is that British people live longer, have far less chance of dying before retirement age, babies are far less likely to die in infancy etc etc than their US counterparts?

Jan 17, 2009 - 2:58 pm 162. ajacksonian:

“What had gone wrong? Like many basically fit people Mil had ignored the warning signs of grave illness.”

Which is immediately followed by:

“This was odd because she and I had been vigilant — yes, neurotic — about the slightest signs of illness after barely surviving the Millennium Flu of December 1999 that had killed thousands here and around the world.”

So which is it?

More importantly she knew that if she wasn’t ‘neurotic’ about her health, that someone would come and pick up after her. This is a contradiction – if she had ignored the warning signs, then she was not looking after herself. You can obsess about one disease and miss another. And if you have government there to pick up after you, then just why, exactly, do you have an incentive to take care of yourself? If the basically healthy don’t bother to look after themselves, then they will have some problems in life… but there is another part that is interesting and I am wondering if the understanding in the UK is the same…

“St. Mary’s is a huge teaching hospital most famous for the corner office of the old building where Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin.”

Teaching hospitals have been a place where the poor have gotten decent treatment, often at low or no cost. Part of the public funding of health care via subsidies is that these hospitals have a hard time competing unless they are co-opted by government. I’ve taken family members to teaching hospitals for that reason, and when the teaching hospitals start to go down on their own and government needs to step in and take of them, then you have a problem as there is no longer private support for the public welfare directly to the hospital without having to go through government bureaucracy. Perhaps the teaching hospitals no longer have that as part of their role in the UK, I truly don’t know.

Somehow this is not a great advertisement for ‘Universal Health Care’ and a great one to show why you need a strong, privately supported teaching hospital that does outreach to the poor and those who misread their lives and don’t buy some form of catastrophic care insurance when they are healthy and the rates low. And if it really is the government providing that support, then I really and for true don’t want ‘Universal Health Care’ as it ruins the public support to its poorest members without having to have a government bureaucrat deciding what to fund. And if you care about the poor, then you, too, would support such hospitals and not depend on the whims of the State for it. That is part of the responsibility of being a citizen that is ill suited to government bureaucracy.

Jan 17, 2009 - 5:22 pm 163. Paul:

To Jonesy55-I am sorry that my note upset you so much.But I do stand by my description of what I saw in the 1990’s.I have met some defenders of the NHS that got close to being violent when faced with another opinion of the NHS.After Google-ing “Troglodytes” I must say that the fine people I met there certainly do not deserve this description.That is what was so upsetting to see these wonderful people being misdiagnosed and inadequately treated by this cumbersome and ossified sysytem.

Jan 17, 2009 - 5:30 pm 164. Former Belgian:

My own experience has taught me that the basic dilemma is this:

Either you have a private healthcare system where quality of care is governed by ability and willingness to pay.

Or you have a socialized system where quality of care is governed by “connections” (ability to pull strings): all patients are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Also, a system like Germany’s is basically hybrid: fairly basic universal government-sponsored insurance, with higher-quality care available if you buy private complementary insurance. Israel is moving in that direction.

I have a feeling that if the US are not careful, they will merely end up trading one set of iniquities for another.

There is also another aspect. In some countries (say, France or Israel), working for the government is considered a respectable career path, and people with real ability choose it. My own experience with US gov’t agencies suggests that if government isn’t the employer of choice for everybody too incompetent or lazy to do something else, still the end result is very similar to this actually being the case. Reverse racism, er, affirmative action has only makde things worse.

So I fear that if the US will go down the road to NHS-style gov’t-sponsored care, it will suck, and suck much worse than the present system.

Another thing: there’s not only the issue of how to divide X amount of stuff more equitably, but also the size of X. In a market-driven system, for all its faults, demand creates an incentive to increase X. In a system like the British one, X stagnates, and eventually “free” care becomes rationed care. Which in countries like Belgium and Holland leads to horrors like fairly common involuntary euthanasia. Or, in England, executive decisions that no patient over age Y can get treatment Z.

Or, for that matter, the more benign decision in the UK and Canada to bump blatant emergencies to the top of the queue, leading to still longer waiting times (and sometimes, in Canada, the patient seeking treatment in the USA instead).

Jan 17, 2009 - 11:23 pm 165. jonesy55:

Paul, as I said in an earlier comment, the early 90s was probably the worst period in the history of the NHS, deliberately starved of funding by a government that didn’t really believe in the system but didn’t propose any real alternative to replace it.

The cynic in me thinks that they were just trying to turn public opinion against the NHS so that they could turn around and say ‘you see, we told you that government always messes things up’.

I’m sure that some lay people do not keep up to date with every advance in medical science, that is their choice but many people are actively interested in their own healthcare and make demands of GPs to see x or y specialist for a or b treatment.

I still don’t really understand how, if as people are claiming, Americans take more interest in their own health and treatment and that treatment is better and more responsive when they do get it, they still die younger, infant mortality is higher etc. Something doesn’t add up somewhere along the line.

Jan 18, 2009 - 12:51 am 166. Rational Joe:

And the winner is about 145 to 6 in favor of personal responsibility over welfare. People who look to govt to fix problems underestimate the nature of humans (flawed, imperfect, corrupt, selfish, self-centered). Absolute power corrupts. If you freely hand over your life (your health) to bureaucrats you have no guarantee that they will maintain your best interest (Think about population control, 1984, or Brave New World). Sorry to paint a horror movie, but that is the type of power you will or have given up when you invest in a NHS.

Just because there are good stories and good medical practices within a NHS does not mean the system works. Is not a broken clock right twice a day?

Deception is not all false or it would not be deception. It is mostly true with a few tweaks on the facts is what makes it false.

A system that is based on moral accountability (free market) will always in principle be the ideal for any HS. Let’s improve our HS with that principle.

Limit, Shrink, Restrain Government, don’t feed that terrible beast with HS, No, No for God Sake No.

Jan 18, 2009 - 1:17 am 167. susan:

“How many times does it have to be repeated that the British NHS is NOT an expensive system by any international comparison and costs less than half per person compared to the US system.”

pointless.

Give us the numbers of how many people in countries with socialized medicine, pay more and go to private hospitals.

If we didn’t have the private option we’d be dying. We keep the socialized system alive for the people who are too lazy to go to work basically. People who live on welfare.

A large chunck of the population “go private” anyway.

Jan 18, 2009 - 7:06 am 168. Paul:

To jonesy55-Since we are now corresponding via the internet let me comment on your latest note.You brought up several interesting points that should be clarified.First “patients make demands of GP’s to see x or y specialist for a or b treatment”That is one of the basic differences between the US private system and the NHS.I suppose that the GP’s in the UK are what is here called the “gatekeepers”.They are somewhat reluctant to refer a patient to a “specialist” unless repeated demands are voiced.That is what I heard.I presume the NHS demands it as they can not cope with the demand (long waiting lists)and the GP’s pocket part of the money saved. The exact opposite happens here.Firstly a good insurance plan has a long list of participating MD’s of all specialities and the patients can visit their MD’s -GP,gynecologists,internist,orthopedic surgeon etc ditectly by making an appointment.The physician then advises on the best course of treatment done in the fastest and most efficient way.The insurance will pay for the tests after approval,minus deductable.There is no waiting list for specialized exams in general as we do the required test immediately on the latest available equipment-day and night according the patient needs.At least in our town and its hospitals.The second point brought up “Americans die younger,infant mortality is higher”.Reading the statistics, that may be true.It all depends how you count.If a newborn is delivered here he/she gets treatment regardless of the maturity of the infants.These are then counted as part of statistics.In Europe ,I believe the definition of infant mortality is different.In Switzerland ,I believe, the living infant is defined as living over 24 hrs ,must have certain weight etc,this of course makes for far better results.
The other point-Americans die younger.Again this may staistically appear to be correct.However the US is a vast country with extremely inhomgeneous population and huge range of socioeconomic structure.Even though bilions of $ were spent on socioeconomic improvements that can go only so far.To really compare the statistics,I believe that one would have to compare fairly homogeneous population of the UK with similar group of Americans.The country is “still” based on personal responsibilty and individual initiative.As far as number of uninsured people,frequent topic here,the reality is somewhat different.Millions of uninsured are illegal immigrats that flood large city hospitals.Another group are people between jobs,loosing insurance bofore getting a new job(certainly a big problem),than there is a large group of people with good incomes that take the risk and refuse to spend money on the insurance premiums.Some hard working self employed fall through the cracks and that should be corrected.By the way we do not refuse treatment to anybody in acute condition,they are stabilized and sent to the local city-University Hospital for further treatment.This is supported by the taxpayers.

Jan 18, 2009 - 8:02 am 169. Fat Man:

Carol Gould has not done a good job making her case. The plural of anecdote is not data. she writes:

“She says she keeps thinking about how she might have died had she been on holiday to the USA and someone might have dithered over her insurance coverage as she lay dying.”

That is rubbish, if she had wound up in any good hospital in the US, one that is ranked as highly in our system as St. Mary’s is in the UK, she would have received treatment as good, or better than, she received in the UK. Payment would not have been discussed with her until after she had recovered. Of course she needn’t discuss payment in the UK, there is nothing to discuss, she will pay her taxes or go to jail.

Second: Ms. Gould has not explained why after the call from Mil on the third day of her illness, Ms. Gould did not take further steps such as calling one of Mil’s other friends, relatives or neighbors, or even the Police. No rule of ethics could have required Ms. Gould to further endanger her own health (remember she had a strep infection) or that of Mil or even strangers on the street, by leaving Ms. Gould’s sickbed, but she needs to tell us why she could not have made a few further phone calls.

Jan 18, 2009 - 10:05 am 170. Doctor Tom:

Remeber there’s no such thing as “good, fast, cheap”. Good and fast is always expensive it just depends on what end the money is taken. Any individual presenting to a medical center in the same condition would have received the same care in the USA regardless of their ability to pay and the pt would have been cleaned up,too. Every day physicians perform pro bono care with no expectation of being paid. One last thought. The only reason, repeat, the only reason for single payor healthcare is to control costs. At best one would hope the level of care is the same. Guaranteed it will not be better. And the best way to control cost is to ration care. If Mil was older than 65 I wonder if she would have received dialysis.

Jan 18, 2009 - 11:26 am 171. Mirco:

I’m an italian nurse, work here.
Currently the Italian NHS (SSN) is run by the regions with the central government deciding who get how much. Obviously, the South (Naples, Sicily, and so on) is the worst managed and the receiver of much more money (per capita).
I have friends living in the USA (California) and I visited London hospitals for study.

I agree with much of the questions raised by the commenters about the behaviors of Carol Gould and incongruence of her story. I could argue that what she saw is pretty common practice in any hospital worth its name, even in Naples.

My first point is: wait to see if your friend will receive rehabilitation, how fast and how much.
I know, for example, that the doctor in chief of the ER had to battle with the Pharmacy to obtain botulin antidotes to keep at hand because they cost so much and expire so fast. But, without, if a botulin poison happen the antidote will be hours away when minute matter. The Neonatal Ward usually went often asking other Neonatal Wards in other hospitals for surfactant (other costly drug used for pre term babies – without they are unable to breath).

For an ecography I needed 30 days (they had a max 30 day waiting list – so they stopped to take appointment when they reached the limits in public hospitals), for the treatment I needed other 30 days (and paid with my wallet money). The SSN would not cover for the Shock Wave treatment to my shoulder; it was surgery (when it will become much worst) or nothing. So I was force to take a (paid) sick leave for two week (I treated the first shoulder but the second worsened first) take an awful quantity of FANS, didn’t was able to sleep for one week and force to sleep seated. It cost me 1.000 €, it cost the SSN for a replacement nurse to do my job, it cost the job insurance (state owned) pay for my sick leave and it cost me two very painful weeks.

The problem is socialism is inefficient. But also that premium health care is not affordable to all. They pay is low (well some private jobs pay less, but not so much), so the best abd the brightest don’t think to become nurse or doctor. We are understaffed because people don’t enroll, we are importing nurses and doctors from abroad (Romania, Perù and others).

The NHS attract people from all the world because is a stepping stone to go in the USA (many englishman and women already went in the USA). The NHS pay more than other European health services so it attract many health workers there. It is a market where who pay more obtain the best people and enough people and who pay less keep what he is able to keep. The Finland nurses did a strike and by law were forced to work (the same is in Italy – you can not go on strike as the law mandate a minimum number of nurses and doctors); after years they were forced to sending their letter of termination en mass to force the state to give them a raise.

Another point about socialized health care is that in Italy you could find an awesome doctor and nurse that care you or an awful doctor and nurse that care you. It is like the ticket of the lottery. Being evaluated for what they accomplished? A minister (Brunetta) is trying to do this. He is submerged by critics from unions, professional orders. God help him.

Jan 18, 2009 - 5:07 pm 172. Jonesy55:

“pointless.

Give us the numbers of how many people in countries with socialized medicine, pay more and go to private hospitals.

If we didn’t have the private option we’d be dying. We keep the socialized system alive for the people who are too lazy to go to work basically. People who live on welfare.

A large chunck of the population “go private” anyway.”

Susan, obviously the numbers vary between countries, not all ’socialised’ systems are the same.

Regarding the UK specifically though as this is what the article was discussing, 12.8% of the population were covered by private medical insurance in 2002 so it’s probably still somewhere in the 10-15% range.

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/aboutus/industry/industry-marketdata/private-medical-insurance/

The private healthcare market is expanding largely as a result of NHS outsourcing to the private sector. For example, early last year my partner needed an operation on her foot, the local NHS could only provide the operation after 5 weeks but a local private hospital had availability in just a few days so she chose to go there and the NHS picked up the bill. This type of funded publicly, carried out privately arrangement is becoming more and more common as part of the largely succesful drive to significantly reduce waiting times.

One of my previous employers, a US company, offered private medical insurance to its workers but many people in my workplace decided to forego this and take a cash alternative instead.

So yes, some people do have private cover but the vast majority do not. They still might get private treatment funded by the NHS though if they need a procedure done and the NHS can’t do it quickly enough.

Jan 19, 2009 - 2:07 am 173. Jonesy55:

Paul thanks for your reply,

“You brought up several interesting points that should be clarified.First “patients make demands of GP’s to see x or y specialist for a or b treatment”That is one of the basic differences between the US private system and the NHS.I suppose that the GP’s in the UK are what is here called the “gatekeepers”.They are somewhat reluctant to refer a patient to a “specialist” unless repeated demands are voiced.That is what I heard.I presume the NHS demands it as they can not cope with the demand (long waiting lists)and the GP’s pocket part of the money saved. The exact opposite happens here.Firstly a good insurance plan has a long list of participating MD’s of all specialities and the patients can visit their MD’s -GP,gynecologists,internist,orthopedic surgeon etc ditectly by making an appointment.The physician then advises on the best course of treatment done in the fastest and most efficient way.The insurance will pay for the tests after approval,minus deductable.There is no waiting list for specialized exams in general as we do the required test immediately on the latest available equipment-day and night according the patient needs.At least in our town and its hospitals.”

Yes, the gatekeeper system does help to cut costs but also means that there is an incentive not to provide treatments. The alternative of a ‘fee for service’ arrangement might go too far the other way though and provide an incentive for unnecessary procedures and thus the costs of the system get out of control.

You can have universal healthcare systems that limit the role of gatekeepers though and allow patients to self-refer to specialists, the French system for example.

“The second point brought up “Americans die younger,infant mortality is higher”.Reading the statistics, that may be true.It all depends how you count.If a newborn is delivered here he/she gets treatment regardless of the maturity of the infants.These are then counted as part of statistics.In Europe ,I believe the definition of infant mortality is different.In Switzerland ,I believe, the living infant is defined as living over 24 hrs ,must have certain weight etc,this of course makes for far better results.”

I don’t know about Switzerland but in the UK infant mortality is measured as a proportion of live births and live births are defined as all births showing signs of life delivered after 24 weeks. Now I can see that this can cause a grey area regarding births at less than 24 weeks but as a proportion of the total these births are minute, 1,300 per year born at less than 26 weeks (half of whom survive) out of a total of 700,000, not enough to make a large difference to the overall statistics. I would also wonder how much difference other countries definitions actually make to the overall picture.

“The other point-Americans die younger.Again this may staistically appear to be correct.However the US is a vast country with extremely inhomgeneous population and huge range of socioeconomic structure.Even though bilions of $ were spent on socioeconomic improvements that can go only so far.To really compare the statistics,I believe that one would have to compare fairly homogeneous population of the UK with similar group of Americans.”

The population of the UK and many other European countries is not that homogenous these days, we have rich people and poor people, black, white and brown people, urban and rural people, legal and illegal immigrants and we also have a problem of ‘health tourism’ whereby ill people come from other countries to access our ‘free’ healthcare which naturally has an effect on the statistics.

“By the way we do not refuse treatment to anybody in acute condition,they are stabilized and sent to the local city-University Hospital for further treatment.This is supported by the taxpayers.”

Yes I know, so tax and insurance premium payers are already paying for the healthcare of others. Opposition to this is one of the main arguments used by those who don’t want universal healthcare but it already happens under the current US system. In fact, under the current system, US citizens pay more tax dollars per head for government provided healthcare than Europeans do, compared to some European countries significantly more.

Would it not be cheaper to allow access to preventative healthcare rather than wait until a person presents at the emergency room with acute symptoms before treating them?

I wouldn’t model any health system on the UK system but I think that you can get the advantages of universal healthcare combined with the efficiencies of the private sector, the best of both worlds.

Jan 19, 2009 - 2:41 am 174. roGER:

As someone who has lived for extended periods in the US, France, and Britain and who has experience of the health systems in all those countries, here are my impressions:

1) In all countries, I was treated by well trained, compassionate and very competent professionals.

2) Each system had ‘quirks’ and horror stories, but overall the standards seemed high and those treating me seemed to do a magnificent job.

3) The US system had a few more ‘niggles’ than the others. I was covered by my employer’s “Blue Cross” health insurance system. Despite this, I had to pay extra for a couple of X-Rays, and for some lab analysis. Both these extras involved phone calls and then forms that required filling, and then finally cheques to be written and sent. In other words, the US system seemed to take a bit more time and effort.

4) The cost of medication in the US should be a national scandal! A very basic inhaler that I know costs approx $25 in the UK and a similar price in France cost nearly $115 in the US – something is going very wrong with the free market!

5) Finally some facts:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678

I suspect that some measure of health care reform is inevitable in the United States.

Jan 19, 2009 - 12:16 pm 175. Blackeyebart:

Avoid the extremes. Socialised medicine or market forces by themselves won’t work well. Choose both and make them compete. Market systems will tend to win out for routine and optional treatments; Socialised medicine for emergencies and for preventive medicine.

Jan 19, 2009 - 7:58 pm 176. momof3:

Roger, post # 174, point 4. Yes, medicines are sometimes really expensive. They take tens of millions of dollars to develop and get to market. And the company that does so needs to make enough money off it, to develop the next drug. There’s a reason most new drugs come from US-based companies. And they only have a few years to make that money back, before another company can swoop in on their research and make a generic for next to nothing. Capping medicine prices is going to really limit new drug research.

NOthing is going wrong with the free market, it’s bearing the burden of cost that the socialized market won’t pay. Unfair to us, yes.

Jan 20, 2009 - 7:12 am 177. Jonesy55:

momof3, the same applies to any product, a new type of aeroplane or computer, a new and improved industrial chemical or a more productive variety of wheat.

All have limited periods before the patent on the technology expires, all have to make back their money in a limited period. I don’t think that capping drug prices is a good solution just allow big purchasers to negotiate discounts that their buying power warrants as happens in any normal free market.

The fact that the US government specifically prohibits this to its public buyers is interference in the working of the market. If I want to buy 100 planes from Boeing, I will likely get a lower price than if I want to buy 1.

By artificially keeping the price of drugs high, this encourages too much money to be put into r&d leading to misallocation of resources, too much money spent on researching drugs that benefit too little. As with most things, diminishing marginal returns apply, each extra $m put into research yields less benefit. It could therefore be quite reasonably argued that the money could be better used in other areas of healthcare or put to better non-healthcare uses if the artificially high prices were not mandated.

European countries with ’socialised’ healthcare seem to do ok when it comes to drug research, Glaxosmithkline, Bayer, Sanofi-Avensis, Astrazeneca etc etc don’t just sit there twiddling their thumbs all year long.

Jan 21, 2009 - 9:46 am 178. thegre8_1:

I see nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that say all of us have a right to health care. I am for extending the length of COBRA and some government help for those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Universal health care will work as good here as Social Security, the Post Office, TARP etc .

Jan 25, 2009 - 2:17 pm