Correspondent of the Day, June 3
Actually, British System Works Quite Well
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I am tired of the United Kingdom's National Health Service being used as a political Aunt Sally, as Ross Mackenzie did recently. Doesn't he think that, after 60 years of experience, if the NHS was and is so awful, the British public and politicians would have used their very flexible government system to throw overboard such a supposed albatross? Rather, the Brits are proud of the principle of the NHS (care free at point of delivery) whilst very critical of poor performance here and there.
I write as a former member of a local U.K. NHS Board for a town of 330,000 people. Yes, the NHS is managed locally, not from the center. And the medical professionals are not salaried but self-employed. They work in a mixed private/public health system and many move daily and easily between both sectors. They are well paid, too.
Yes, there are budgets -- and if you have pressures the NHS center may be asked to find more resources. And if treatments don't work, they will be discouraged. And elective surgery gets less priority. Also, I chaired the local NHS Complaints body, where we could review cases and give patients and relatives a chance to see that many perceived problems were the result of poor communication and so assuaged any push to legal remedies. Yet we the NHS could penalize doctors and dentists but not by way of the courts.
Unlike most of your columnists, I can speak from personal experience as a contented NHS patient for 50 years. Also, two family members had serious cancers. I checked over here and was advised that the treatments being given by the NHS were world-class, one in a small hospital 230 miles from London. And in both cases the primary-care doctor came to the family homes daily, as did the district nurses. And only this month my 96-year-old mother had a heart monitor implanted; thanks so much to the NHS.
No, the Brits would not trade their NHS for our hodgepodge. We here have on one hand the well-insured ("so this a great system") and on the other the uninsured and the seriously ill who, lacking the resources of the insurance industry and drug manufacturers, can only with little political clout decry our lack of reforming resolve and generally indifferent quality health outcomes.
And leaving employers to carry much of the burden we all should share is no consolation to those in our automotive industry who are losing their jobs. How stupid and self-flagellating can we get?
Tony Pelling.
Richmond.
Reader Reactions
Man may have a point. Life expectancy rate: U.K. ranked #26 at 78.7 yrs; U.S. #30 at 78.06 yrs; Infant mortality per 1,000: U.K. 4.8; U.S. 6.3; U.S. ranks 10 countries worse than U.K.
But what the heck! We far lead the world…BIG TIME…with #1 highest health care cost in earth.
If Britain’s healthcare is so great, how come they have a greater life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than us. Something isn’t adding up!
I am against the government handling healthcare.
1. They have not demonstrated any degree of competence in their existing extra-constitutional bailiwicks such as medicaid, medicare and social security.
2. Reductions in cost of 1.5 percent per year? That’s meager. If the government would simply get out of the way, you could probably make deeper cuts in costs.
3. Nothing is free. People who use a healthcare system should be made to pay into it. It is fundamentally unfair to make others pay for your healthcare.
A new study by President’s Council of Economic Advisers demonstrates that the current American health care system is on an unsustainable path. Years of diagnosis on the ills of the U.S. health system have produced no cure. Health care expenditures in this country are currently 18 percent of GDP and, without change, will keep rising, until they account for nearly one-third of our total output by 2040. Even with this exorbitant bill, about 46 million Americans lack health insurance coverage today, and this number is predicted to rise to 72 million over the next three decades.
The administration “and health industry leaders” have pledged to work toward a goal of reducing health care cost growth by 1.5 percentage points per year. And, the Administration is committed to working toward ensuring that all Americans have access to health insurance coverage.
If anyone is against that, why?
In a word, SAVINGS. When ALL other advanced nations can provide basic health care to all citizens at much less cost to the citizenry as a whole, than our more costly sytem does for a part (84%) of our whole, why can’t we? Are not we suppose to be a “better way” nation? Britain does it better, Germany, France, Canada, Aussies, Netherlands; all are wrong, and only one nation (America) is right? Nope. There is a better way. We just gotta want lower cost (including contracting for meds under Medicare Plan D at minimum, prices comparable to same meds Canadian system nogotiates with same pharmaceuticals).
Are some people so brainwashed by Limbaugh, Fox-only, & policians bought by the industry? Appears so.
In a word: California. Too many immigrants. Overload on state health care system. Bankruptcy.
Do we want this for the entire US? Becasue taht is what natiojnal healthcare will be. Period.
Y2008 Fed budget was $3 trillion, of which Medicare/Medicare was not 42%, but was 23%. Noted $3 trillion budget was 21% of our $14.4 trillion gross domestic product (look it up, if you don’t know what that means).
Again, for those against affordable health care, do you support “as is” + allowing option for individuals to PAY FULL PREMIUM COST for Medicare coverage (those under age 65)?
Medicaid and Medicare take up 42% of the federal budget. National health care will double that figure at least.
So, we’re going to double our budget?
Crazy! We have no hope of paying the debt now, much less with more spending.
Stop the madness!
Who pays for covering all citizens? Will first answer who pays for current U.S. system that costs our country as a whole, 17.3% of our $14.4 billion gross domestic product ($2.5 billion cost). Germany’s total cost? 10.7% of their GNP. Hello. Ours costs our nation 60% more than theirs. Does that not “ring your bell”? If they can cover all with quality care less costly than we, why can’t we?
Would anti-cost-savings/while-cover-all supporters find issue with this: Keep all current for-profit insurance options, while adding option of for-patient Medicare insurance at FULL cost premiums for those who op for it? Whatever the full cost (perhaps $350/mo) of covering a 55-yr old female, she has option of purchasing such for Plans A, B, & D at FULL premium cost. Any issue with that fairness?
Oh yes;
“and covering all citizens”
Who pays for it? Want to compare tax rates?
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement