They say British Health Care is Rubbish.

[Ragamuffin_artist]

As some of you may know, there has been a huge row across the pond here in America regarding the possible implementation of (essentially mandatory) national health care. One of the principal arguments used by opponents of the plan is that the national health care system in Britain is absolute rubbish. Much of this is obviously unfounded. For example, the statement by opponents of the plan that “if Steven Hawking were British he would have been denied healthcare under the NHS.” (Yes, statements like this make me want to crawl under a rock and die). But in all seriousness, if Steven Hawking were not, in fact, Stephen Hawking, and was instead completely incapable since birth of exhibiting any meaningful interaction with other people, what would his/her prospects realistically be under the NHS? Furthermore, on the whole, are Britons rather satisfied with NHS? Should healthcare be largely privatized? Do people really “die on waiting lists” in the UK, as is claimed here in the states? This Yank would heartily welcome any honest comments re: Britain's NHS.

[RedCelt69]

As some of you may know, there has been a huge row across the pond here in America regarding the possible implementation of (essentially mandatory) national health care. One of the principal arguments used by opponents of the plan is that the national health care system in Britain is absolute rubbish. Much of this is obviously unfounded. For example, the statement by opponents of the plan that “if Steven Hawking were British he would have been denied healthcare under the NHS.” (Yes, statements like this make me want to crawl under a rock and die). But in all seriousness, if Steven Hawking were not, in fact, Stephen Hawking, and was instead completely incapable since birth of exhibiting any meaningful interaction with other people, what would his/her prospects realistically be under the NHS? Furthermore, on the whole, are Britons rather satisfied with NHS? Should healthcare be largely privatized? Do people really “die on waiting lists” in the UK, as is claimed here in the states? This Yank would heartily welcome any honest comments re: Britain's NHS.

Stephen Hawking is on record as saying that he owes his life to the NHS. As do I. Not on record... well, I am now, I guess.

I don't really *do* patriotism. I've always been rather shy of delineating sets of people based on political borders and saying that one set of people is less worthy (that is; have less worth) than another set of people... because historically, one set of people (through war, conquest or bloody-mindedness) contrived to metaphorically piss on a tree to mark their territory.

I make an exception for the NHS. It is an institution that makes me glad to have been born and raised on this island-off-the-coast of Europe. Then again, the French also have an excellent healthcare system.

The demonisation of the NHS by ignorant fear-mongering Americans quite frankly fucks me right off.

The NHS does have its problems. Due to underfunding and general fucking-upedness by politicians, there have been issues with (for instance) waiting lists... but, on the whole, the NHS works a damned-sight better than the American system which relies on insurance schemes. Insurance is great if you can afford it. Or are employed. Not so great if you can't. Or aren't. Or have an illness requiring expensive treatment that your insurance company does its damndest to get out of paying.

I have a hit-and-miss liking of Michael Moore. Bowling for Columbine was great. Fahrenheit 911 not so great. Sicko is somewhere inbetween (the trip to Cuba was just silly) but it is good for highlighting the differences (and problems) between the USA and countries that have socialised health care.

Which is where the problem is with many Americans. Brainwashed for generations into hating and fearing Communism, it is an easy sell to say that social health care is Socialism (Communism) by the back door. Especially when you have insurance companies (with fat wallets) lobbying to keep the status quo (fat wallets).

Also, you mentioned (and I've heard from others) that the proposed health care reforms will be mandatory. In the UK, we have a private health care system that runs in tandem with the NHS. For those willing and able to pay for private health care, the option is still very much there.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" ...and ask "are you insured? No?" <sound of golden door slamming shut>

[donpablo]

If it wasn't for the NHS a lot of us would be right up shit creek. I too probably owe my life in some small but taken for granted significant way to the NHS. On the whole they do a good job if we are being honest. So there is a million things they could improve on of course but it is free (more or less). If you don't like it you always have the option to go private or make do / die in a gutter. People are too quick to forget that and seem to think they are entitled to the top treatment available. Any treatment should be the most cost effective available and only to ensure a fair quality of life.

The politicians do fuck me right off though, them and the lefties. People get all sorts of stupid treatments on the NHS, that they seem to think they have some right to! The resources of which should be going to those that are more in need of it but maybe the balance is right its just my opinion is slightly one side of the line. I would be inclined to be less lenient with a lot of people that want cosmetic surgery, fertility treatment or end up there due to their own stupid consumption of too much al-co-mo-hol or even cake! (we're already stretched enough as it is) and the management / target culture in general just seems retarded. I have a suspicion that the majority of this record investment goes to line the pockets of managers and consultants and rarely reaches the areas that so badly need it.

But again the nurses and doctors on the ground are on the whole superb. I cannot fault them. My dad lives in America and although he has a nice health care insurance thing through his work or however it works there he is all for the NHS and having experience of both thinks it's a better system. The medic students around St Andrews are great for an NHS vs private discussion. Maybe a couple will wade in with their 2 cents, what with being slightly more informed than me.

[Super Jock]

I love the NHS, yeah it's flawed, and apparently America are about a decade ahead of the UK in medical imaging, (told this by a British radiographer,) but that's only good if you can get access to it.

As a toddler my sister wasn't diagnosed correctly with kidney failure. Doctors are fallible and make mistakes and if it wasn't for the fact it's easy and cheap to get a second opinion...

She was apparently a few hours from dialysis for life, when she was correctly diagnosed. Now she's completely healthy, score 1 for NHS. Plus although bureaucracy eats money from poor efficiency, there's no way that it's more than what goes into the insurance companies bank accounts.

[RedCelt69]

The following stats are taken from the CIA (useful resource for world stats) website.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 2rank.html

As a comparison, the average world life expectancy is 66.57

France 80.98 (9th)
UK 79.01 (36th)
USA 78.11 (50th)
Greenland 70.07 (143rd)

Greenland is the lowest "Western" nation that I spotted from a quick scan. The UK's life expectancy would be higher if it weren't for lifestyle (poor diet and physical exercise) and (sadly) Scotland's love for fatty foods drags the UK-wide average down a smidgen. I've read elsewhere that Scotland has the lowest life-expectancy in Europe (presumably excluding Greenland). Which has nothing to do with health care provision by the NHS... which is just as good as that provided South of the border.

Still... it kinda blows the NHS-haters out of the water. What's that, you say, Sarah Palin? Death panels?

[Ragamuffin_artist]

Death panels are a sticky issue for both parities. The fact is, they were in the original proposed bill until Sarah Palin (love her or hate her) brought them to public attention, at which point they were swiftly removed in the current amended version of the bill. Subsequently, Democrats bring themselves to orgasm by saying that Sarah is a liar, since the alleged death panels are NOT a part of CURRENT bill. At the same time, conservatives bring themselves to ruin by mindlessly claiming that they still are. Thus, Although Sarah bugs me for the same reason she likely bugs you, I have no respect for those who challenge her on this particular issue unless she is STILL claiming that there are death panels, which, to my knowledge, she is not.

But on to more pressing issues. Nobody has yet mentioned what would have happened to Stephen Hawking if he had, from birth, been a vegetable that was capable of nothing more than drooling on his caretakers. Under the NHS, what health care would he/she have been given? And who would have been the one to make all the decisions? I actually think this is a rather serious issue here.

[LonelyPilgrim]

The NHS has superior patient outcomes than the US in every category except cancer care. Or so claims my boss who studies these sorts of things and has lived in both the US and the UK.

I've also lived in both and what I've seen hasn't impressed me - in either country. From what I know, which is admittedly not a whole terrible lot, I'd rather see the US take a long hard look at the Dutch system than the NHS (and either system would be considerable improvement over the status quo since even if an NHS system is a wash on quality, it would still improve access, which is our largest problem).

[Humphrey]

The following stats are taken from the CIA (useful resource for world stats) website.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 2rank.html

As a comparison, the average world life expectancy is 66.57

France 80.98 (9th)
UK 79.01 (36th)
USA 78.11 (50th)
Greenland 70.07 (143rd)

Greenland is the lowest "Western" nation that I spotted from a quick scan. The UK's life expectancy would be higher if it weren't for lifestyle (poor diet and physical exercise) and (sadly) Scotland's love for fatty foods drags the UK-wide average down a smidgen. I've read elsewhere that Scotland has the lowest life-expectancy in Europe (presumably excluding Greenland). Which has nothing to do with health care provision by the NHS... which is just as good as that provided South of the border.

Still... it kinda blows the NHS-haters out of the water. What's that, you say, Sarah Palin? Death panels?

I think the statistics for the USA's life expectancy are pretty good given how utterly reckless people are with their personal health there. You have 10 states where the obesity rate is over 30%. Food is really cheap and everyone drives everywhere (except for major urban areas like NY). That means, higher incidence of cardiac arrest, greater risk of cancer and increased rick of type 2 diabetes. All that good living comes at a cost.

Is British Health Care rubbish?. I think not, although it is something of a mixed bag. On the one hand they did a good job with my hearing when it went haywire as a kid, I have friends and relations working in the NHS and they care deeply about their work. On the other one of my relatives died from MRSA and last time I went to the Royal Free in Hampstead there was vomit and great piles of dirt all over the waiting room; I waited 3 hours to see someone and nobody showed up, so in the end I went home. They were very reluctant to give me an operation on my shoulder (which keeps dislocating) so in the end I decided to just live with it. The NHS is good but it's a fact that my inlaws in the states get a higher standard of healthcare through their insurance plans. On the other hand, their system is unfair and the lack of coverage is a national disgrace. All systems have their virtues and vices.

[Guest]

While I still think the NHS has its advantages over the American system, I don't think it's the best system to imitate. Americans who argue against nationalised healthcare pretty much always use the Canadian and British systems as proof that it's a terrible idea (of course picking and choosing information and distorting it), but rarely are other systems discussed, like those in place in France, Germany, Japan, etc. The insurance companies in the US really are criminals, and there are parts of the city I live in that might as well be 3rd world countries due to the almost complete lack of healthcare there for adults and children. People are right to complain about the waiting often required for treatment here, but I guess I have just stuck to the positive assumption that the NHS doesn't stall people with life-threatening problems. I know, however, that my personal experience with the health centre in St Andrews has been horrible. I don't know whether it is because one of the secretaries working there is incompetent, or because they have some bias against American students, but on multiple occasions (I've lost count) when I've showed up to my appointment, I have been told that I never made any appointment. This has also happened to a couple of my friends. So far I have had to wait 11 months for an allergy test, despite having told the doctor that I have lost consciousness and stopped breathing due to unknown allergic reactions. These 11 months have been filled with pointless appointments (each time I went in I was under the impression that they'd finally do the test) where I was given no new information and was simply referred on to the next person. I have to assume that the only reason I've been duped this way is that I am young (and maybe because I'm an American who doesn't pay taxes), because if such practice was universal all the old people around here would have died by now. In any case, my experience with American doctors has always been better than my experience here. That said I don't think my one isolated case really justifies denying treatment to large swathes of the American population.

I don't know much about Steven Hawking, but I can say that depending on what family a person with similar problems were born into, he would receive either excellent healthcare or no care at all.

[Haunted]

Death panels are a sticky issue for both parities...

Bullshit, they were a total myth laced with inflammatory language designed to irk the crazies into a frenzy. The bill never once encouraged euthanasia.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/ ... 5880.shtml
1. The House Health Care Bill Mandates or Encourages Euthanasia (Myth)

At a tele-town hall meeting with members of the senior advocacy group AARP last month, President Obama could not help but describe one question he received as "kind of morbid."

"I have been told there is a clause in (the health care bill) that everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die," said a caller named Mary from North Carolina. "This bothers me greatly, and I'd like for you to promise me that this is not in this bill."

There is nothing in any health care reform bill before Congress that would require people to "decide how they wish to die." Conservative talking points from activists and legislators, however, would suggest otherwise.

This rumor gained traction in large part because of comments from former Republican lieutenant governor of New York Betsy McCaughey. On a radio show on July 16, McCaughey said she had read the bill and discovered that "Congress would make it mandatory... that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care... all to do what's in society's best interest... and cut your life short."

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) put out a statement on July 23 that suggested as much.

"Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on 'the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration' and other end of life treatments, and may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign," they said. "This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law."

In fact, section 1233 of the House bill would allow Medicare for the first time to cover patient-doctor consultations about end-of-life planning, including discussions about drawing up a living will or planning hospice treatment. Patients would, of course, seek out such advice on their own -- they would not be required to. The provision would limit Medicare coverage to one consultation every five years.

And now

Stephen Hawking if he had, from birth, been a vegetable that was capable of nothing more than drooling on his caretakers. Under the NHS, what health care would he/she have been given? And who would have been the one to make all the decisions? I actually think this is a rather serious issue here.

Stephen Hawking was diagnosed with MND when he was 21. He wasn't a famous scientist then, certainly not a celebrity, he was just a joe schmoe and he got treatments on the NHS to which he himself has said "he owes his life to".

[Ragamuffin_artist]

Inflammatory language for sure, but, as your little news clip aptly demonstrates, definitely not a "total myth." The problem people have with section 1233 (which I actually thought was no longer part of the bill) is that since national care would allegedly place cost effectiveness over quality of care, there might be more pressure to seriously consider alternative end of life options than there would be under a private system.

Thanks Humphrey for your candid remarks. I'm afraid stories like that (the waiting room and the broken arm bit) are exactly why people over here, myself included, are nervous about a system comparable to NHS here in the States. I'm not sure how typical your experience is, but for better or for worse, I'm afraid that is pretty much the caricature of Britain's NHS here in the states. At least by Republicans. I think I'd feel better about the thing if people were allowed to stay on a private plan if they wanted to (in anticipation of some irate remarks re: that point, my understanding is that there are equivocations in the bill which serve to railroad everyone eventually into national health care. For example, one would not be allowed to switch from one private system to another under the proposed plan, I believe. Dropping the private insurance you have now would by default place you under NHS, even if your intent was simply to purchase a different private plan. I'm also told that once under NHS, one would not have the option of getting private insurance. The thing would be like fly tape).

Someone mentioned the Dutch. I honestly know nothing about Dutch healthcare. I'll have to look into that.

[Ragamuffin_artist]

Sorry...one more thing:

I'm still curious about what would happen to someone that was in a vegetative state from birth. What care do people with severe forms of retardation receive? I'm not implying that I think they're left to die, but I find it unlikely that they would be given the same care as the next guy. If they are, then that would score some huge points for NHS.

[donpablo]

I'm pretty sure they get exactly the same levels of care and attention as the next guy subject to the same pros and cons (relatively speaking of course).

[donpablo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8238789.stm

I just read that and nearly had my brain collapse in on itself! This is one of the unfortunate downsides of the NHS. While not a problem caused by the NHS it gives these complete f*cking morons carte blanche to do whatever they want witth their bodies. And I think these people should have their kids taken off them because they are clearly not intelligent enough to look after themselves. Does this kind of situation happen in America? Screw the death panels we might actually need eugenics panels!

Discuss...

[Haunted]

...national care would allegedly place cost effectiveness over quality of care, there might be more pressure to seriously consider alternative end of life options than there would be under a private system.

What part are you reading? The bill simply says that medicare will pay for doctor/patient consultations about end of life planning if and only if the patient wants it!
How you translate this into government ordered euthanasia is a great feat of mental acrobatics.

I'm still curious about what would happen to someone that was in a vegetative state from birth. What care do people with severe forms of retardation receive? I'm not implying that I think they're left to die, but I find it unlikely that they would be given the same care as the next guy. If they are, then that would score some huge points for NHS.

An unknown 21 year old physics undergraduate isn't enough to show that there is no preferential treatment? The whole point is that everyone gets treated equally under the NHS and, yes babies are citizens to, so they get access to the same treatment.

What possible reason do you have to "find this unlikely"? Is cynicism on the worth of human life so low over there that you find it the norm to deny treatment to people based on their status?

Here try this
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Motor-neur ... tment.aspx

[Ragamuffin_artist]

[/quote]

An unknown 21 year old physics undergraduate isn't enough to show that there is no preferential treatment? The whole point is that everyone gets treated equally under the NHS and, yes babies are citizens to, so they get access to the same treatment.

What possible reason do you have to "find this unlikely"? Is cynicism on the worth of human life so low over there that you find it the norm to deny treatment to people based on their status?
[/quote]

Well, if that is the case, then this is good news indeed. With regard to your oblique jab at America, speaking for myself, I value all human life and the intent of this thread was to ensure that all life is treated with equal reverence and respect under nationalized healthcare. My cynicism is based in the government's predictable inability to run things properly. In short, I suspect quality may be sacrificed for cost-effectiveness. If cost-effectiveness becomes the primary arbitrator of who gets treated first, as I'm sure it would have to be under any form of nationalized care, then it seems there would be a strong temptation to give preferential treatment to a taxpayer with a reasonable prospect for a long life expectancy than a non-taxpaying quadriplegic with down's syndrome and a probable short life expectancy. If, as you claim, the NHS would not give such preferential treatment, then that is indeed something to be very proud of, and I hope the same will be true in America when/if the bill gets passed.

As for the death panels, I stand corrected.

[RedCelt69]

It isn't directly related to the NHS, but those with mobility issues can qualify for mobility allowance. Two members of my extended family qualify. Every two years they get a new (free) car (up to a certain value, with the previous vehicle returned, obviously).

Just to fill-in the gaps wrt the notion that people in the UK are written-off if they are "sub-normal".

As others have said, Hawkins would have received the exact same level of care if he had been born with a debilitating illness.

[Haunted]

Well, if that is the case, then this is good news indeed. With regard to your oblique jab at America, speaking for myself, I value all human life and the intent of this thread was to ensure that all life is treated with equal reverence and respect under nationalized healthcare.

It was a jab at yourself but I left you with with the possibility to blame the culture instead. You should not be impressed that equality is valued, only appalled if it is not.

My cynicism is based in the government's predictable inability to run things properly. In short, I suspect quality may be sacrificed for cost-effectiveness. If cost-effectiveness becomes the primary arbitrator of who gets treated first, as I'm sure it would have to be under any form of nationalized care

Are you also equally worried about the fire brigade treating people differently because they don't pay taxes? What about a murder enquiry being binned because the victim happened to be unemployed? Or perhaps the Sewerage department won't bother fixing the pipes that go to poorer areas?

In all of these government run institutions, the day to day decisions are made by the professionals NOT bureaucrats. Doctors make the individual decisions. Managers and bureaucrats make policy decisions.

[the Empress]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8238789.stm

I just read that and nearly had my brain collapse in on itself! This is one of the unfortunate downsides of the NHS. While not a problem caused by the NHS it gives these complete f*cking morons carte blanche to do whatever they want witth their bodies. And I think these people should have their kids taken off them because they are clearly not intelligent enough to look after themselves. Does this kind of situation happen in America? Screw the death panels we might actually need eugenics panels!

Discuss...

The article actually says women 'have heard stories' read: urban myths, not 'I have stick clingfilm up my vagina'.

'

[I would be inclined to be less lenient with a lot of people that want cosmetic surgery, fertility treatment or end up there due to their own stupid consumption of too much al-co-mo-hol'

You may want to read this: ttp://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/890.aspx?Cat ... goryID=154 Cosmetic surgery is done on the NHS free for reconstruction or congenital abnormalities only. It'd be pretty sick to deny someone that.

[donpablo]

The article actually says women 'have heard stories' read: urban myths, not 'I have stick clingfilm up my vagina'.

Let me respond to your selective quoting with another piece then...

Dr Annie Evans, Women's Health Specialist at the Bristol Sexual Health Centre, said: "It is not surprising, given that Britain continues to have the highest unintended pregnancy rate in Europe."

So are you suggesting this has nothing to do with urban myths, its all correlation not causation in your opinion?

Other myths surround the use of oral contraceptive pills. One in 10 of the women questioned believed that it always takes a number of years to regain fertility after discontinuation of the pill. Others believed that the pill could protect them against HIV.

Yes this actually says 1 in 10 'believe' not 'have heard'. You sound all defensive as if it is something you have tried.

'I would be inclined to be less lenient with a lot of people that want cosmetic surgery, fertility treatment or end up there due to their own stupid consumption of too much al-co-mo-hol'

You may want to read this: ttp://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/890.aspx?Cat ... goryID=154 Cosmetic surgery is done on the NHS free for reconstruction or congenital abnormalities only. It'd be pretty sick to deny someone that.

Again it does not say that at all! You and your collective picking of words! I shall quote the exact line you are taking out of context.

The NHS will not pay for surgery for cosmetic reasons alone. Reconstructive and cosmetic surgery to correct, or improve, congenital abnormalities and injuries will usually be carried out free of charge.

What this means in context is if you can show that you are a little bit depressed about the size of your boobs then you can certainly get a boob job on the NHS and it does happen along with tattoo removal and other 'cosmetic' surgeries.

I'm not some sort of idiot that would even suggest denying it for people who actually needed it though but some people should stop being babies about what they are given.

REPLY FAIL!