Posted on 04/24/2008 8:01:21 AM PDT by britlabour
Firstly - apologies for this not being a news story but I really wanted to ask this question! As you know, in the UK we have universal healthcare. A couple of weeks ago I had an interesting conversation with a conservative American tourist outside Buckingham palace (we were both spectators at the London Marathon event). I was telling him about a hospital visit I had had recently and he replied that he had originally been opposed to socialised healthcare - until he suffered from chest pains at Heathrow, an ambulance arrived within six minutes. Basically what I wanted to ask was - what are the reservations that many Americans have to free healthcare, funded by the taxpayer and evenly spread nationwide (or statewide as the case may be). I know that it SOUNDS socialist - but sometimes it is a good thing to borrow ideas that are good from an otherwise failing ideology, as the British Conservatives did with the NHS. Any thoughts?
Chest pains is a different animal than being put on a waiting list for other surgeries; dial 911 and say “chest pains” and response is immediate. How about UK dental care? We’re told it’s so expensive that many people pull their own teeth.
One of the objections we Americans have is that the idea of “universal health care” will never stay an insurance plan. Inevitably when more and more people flood the system, care will have to be rationed. Already in the state of Massachusetts, which has a state run plan, many doctors cannot provide a plain physical until mid-2009!
From a Libertarian stand point I refuse to allow an bureaucrat to make decisions about whether or not I or my family receive care, from whom or for what. I refuse to give politicians the power of life and death over me.
If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it’s ‘FREE’- PJ O’Rourke
How do you guys handle malpractice suits?
IBTZ
The problem I have with it is principle-based. No, it it not good, IMO, to borrow any socialist ideas. If people need healthcre, they’ll just have to pay for it themselves.
Let's look at the service. First, six minutes for an ambulance to arrive is pretty normal here as well and doesn't reflect any major difference, but let's talk about elective surgery (versus emergency). If you needed a hip replacement, how long would it take for you to get an appointment. This is personal for me because my father just had hip replacement surgery last year. He was able to go to the doctor for initial consultation, set up the appointment, and have the surgery all within a week. In Canada for example, the waiting list for hip replacement is six years.
There are also fundamental issues. For example, when you say ‘healthcare’ is a right, why stop there? Why not housing. It isn't fair that some don't have homes while others have homes, should everyone just share home costs? How about a car? How about income?
Now, going back to your friend.. guess what, in the US, if he didn't have insurance, hospitals are still required to take care of him in an emergency, so insured or not insured, he would have been helped- without universal coverage.
This is just one small comment on some of the differences.. I'm sure many others will jump in..
Well, dental care is actually free - or heavily subsidised. About $8 equivalent for a tooth filling. There is the option to go private though. Some areas don’t have enough space and you perhaps need to wait for a month or so for an appointment unless it is an emergency.
disabled, war-widows, etc etc? What about those.
There's the rub, right there. The fact is, people DO pay for it themselves, always. The only question is whether they pay for it directly, as in a fee-for-services arrangement, or indirectly through insurance companies, co-ops, government-run agencies, or what have you.
Any structure other than fee-for-services necessarily adds overhead to the system. Insurance companies add a lot of overhead, and government adds even more.
Here in the U.S., a call to 911 normally produces an ambulance right away, too.
The question shouldn’t be about why we’re opposed to socialized medicine. The question should be: What exactly do you believe are the advantages of socialized medicine?
Let’s start there.
sniff
You just, inadvertently stepped into the number one reason why the government should be out of this from a 'universal' standpoint. I am going to use vets as an example because it is personal to a lot of people. No one here will argue that we should take care of injured veterans, it is an obligation for their service to us. However, how do you help those in need when you are saying 'everyone' is in need? If you have a bucket of water and you want to help ten thirsty people, do you give the water to everyone, whether they are thirsty or not, or do you just give it to the thirsty? If you have an obligation to take care of wounded vets, how can you do that when you are spreading out the funding to everyone? With universal systems, those who are truly in need and you have an obligation to help are those who are hurt the most because the pool of funds to help them, is spread out among everyone.
That’s why we have Medicare. Those people are still taken care of, even without “universal health care”.
“free healthcare, funded by the taxpayer “
Notice the contradiction?
Your healthcare is NOT free.
No no no! Though I can understand your error. Our tax system is painfully difficult to understand. 0-6000 pounds is tax free, 6-12000 is 10p, 12-24000 (about) is 21p, 24-36000 is 38 or so. You only pay it on the relevent part of your wage. so for the first 6000 you pay nothing, for the second 6000 you pay 10p (per pound, 10%), the next 12000 you pay 21p on the pound. ETC. It’s all staged, you are not taxed on the top rate for your pay on all of your pay. I hope that’s clear as it can be!
Disabled people could rely on private charity if government wasn’t taxing us to death. War-widows can get the life insurance from their spouse, since the government is an employer, and most employers provide that.
Under most universal systems, the cost is redistributed out, scaled, as with a tax system. Government cannot be trusted, at all, to govern healthcare wthout looking at it from a “What about the poooooooor?” mindset.
I am not talking about the cost ( which is another issue) but just be able to obtain it.
I used to think it should all be left to private sector but it has been and there has been no solution to date.
It's great to sit back and say the government should not be in health care when one has insurance or can obtain. And again I am not talking about the cost. What is the solution.
Yes, our Constitution does not provide for this entitlement - the constitution would have to be changed for “universal healthcare”....whatever that means.
Nothing is Free. Your costs are either hidden, or being paid by someone else. Neither are right.
In before the chest pains! Welcome to FR my socialist friend.
Returning from Jamaica and having a layover in Flordia my wife needed medical attention while we were sitting around between flights and 3 paramedics were on her almost instantly after telling a lady at a ticket counter my wife needed help.
And to make her return flight home more comfortable, and her more accessable to staff in case of an emergency, we were moved to first class, front row.
I don't think an incident at an airport, especially one of the worlds largest is a very good example to use.
How about a 70 year old guy needing a hip replacement in London vs. NYC.
Would you like to take on that comparrison?
I wonder if your so-called “conservative American tourist” is all that conservative to begin with. At a minimum, he needs a basic education in economics before making a decision on a subject of such enormous proportions based on his own personal experience in a major European airport.
I can see why the people of the UK would never give up their socialized medical scheme.
Left to the private sector (the market)?!?!? HA!
There are over 2,000 mandated "must cover" items on a health insurance policy. That alone throws it out of "the market".
I want a pony.
Actually that was very clear, and an important distinction. However.. Having been in the military myself and being exposed to the miltary healthcare system which works in effect exactly the same as any other socialized miedicine system I can point out a few of it’s detractor’s.
1. We had no choice when it came to who our physician was, whoever happened to be on duty that day was who we got and there was no way to determine whether or not our caregiver was brilliant or just barely adequate.
2. Because people would use the system to get out of work, the doctor’s had a tendency to not believe you when you described your issues and would often tell you the equivalent of ‘take two aspirin and call me in the morning if it still bothering you’. I had a personal experience with this suffering from bronchitis and it was only after my lungs had become infected and I had passsed out on my commander that I was finally given appropriate treatment.
3. If caregiver’s are making a flat fee there is no incentive to put in extra hours or go above and beyond the call of duty.
How special you Socialist Moron! Sign up today and pic a major scab...
Why don’t you tell me how you feel about the UK health care when your child is sick but there is no diagnosis withing several years. Oh, yeah he/she still gets medical attention right?
Let me know when you visit your child’s grave how good you feel then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Though it is cheaper.
The onus is on you to show how your nation’s healthcare system is better than ours.
Our system is not perfect, but it’s considered the best in the world. There is already some government control of our medical system. Why should we put it completely under government control? What do you believe the benefits would be?
Two parts.. First, he freely chose the situation he is in, why should the government regulate consequences of choices you make? Second, no one is denied health care in our system, that is a common myth. Emergency services can never be denied and the very poor do have Medicaid. When you are talking about universal healthcare, you are not talking about the poorest of the poor losing emergency services. If the market where truly free, your friend could freely choose the plan that best serves him, just like food. If a person needs food, they can choose cheap fish and chips, or they can, if they can afford it, choose to go to one of Ramsey's places. If the market where free, you would have companies offer services to all potential customer bases. In a universal system, even the poor person has to pay a chunk of the rich person's visiting Ramesey's place (using the food analogy.) Why should the poor have to subsidize the middle class and rich?
President Reagan said it best: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'!"
After reading a few news stories (two I remember specifically out of Canada and Austrialia) about doctors/courts ordering patients killed against the wishes of their families because their case was "hopeless" I am terrified of socialized medicine.
This has a personal connection to me because last fall my cousin had a massive stroke during surgery to remove a tumor behind her eye and the doctors basically said the situation was "hopeless" but her family refused to give up. She began to be responsive two months later and can now speak in sentences, recall information (like phone numbers & song lyrics), sit up on her own, and even stand if holding on to a walker.
I shudder to think of what would have happened had the govenment been in charge of deciding when to give up.
You only think that because it’s already being taken out of your paycheck. It’s the great illusion. You are definitely paying for it, and paying a lot. And if you don’t make enough to pay your share, than someone else is paying for you.
Even the unemployed here in the U.S. cannot be denied healthcare at our hospitals. Even if they cannot pay their hospital bills, by law, the doctors must admit them and treat them as any other patient. And our government does provide and/or subsidize healthcare for the poor.
I wouldn't say that. I (and my employer combined) pay less than $1k a year for myself and my wife, full coverage, including dental and prescriptions. Can you say you pay less than 750pounds in taxes (trying to make the numbers balance for your currency) than I do for this benefit?
In some States where insurance is highly regulated by the government, yes it costs a lot more, but in States like mine where there is more market competition allowed, insurance is very affordable.
Dialysis is denied to those who reach 55 years of age. But they don’t get a bill.
I think Europeans misunderstand our system. They are fed lies about our system.
That’s the kind of thing I’m getting at! Britain seems to be (from my travels) the only state healthcare system that works. I only ever pay seven pence per pound (7%) national insurance (NI covers the NHS, not tax - by the way). So on my wages I pay £2,100 per year, yet over the last five years I have probably used around £3000 worth of health care.
Well that was a ridiculous comment. I am a conservative actually - I despised nationalised transport. There are no year long waiting lists, the average is 25 days for a major surgery.
Lets get things straight - I don’t believe in it completely. The main advantage is that the State sector will provide major hospitals in rural areas - areas they may not make profit for the private sector. In that situation people are getting healthcare close to home.
“he freely chose the situation he is in”
What if he can’t get promotion? Then he doesn’t deserve a doctor because he is incapable of promotion?
As I said, taxes are staggered so the poor don’t subsidise much.
that’s the worker’s chouice. he knows the risks getting into that position, so he has to sleep in the bed he made.
That must be the difference in the UK, here, the job market is such that if you are willing to sacrifice, work harder, get educated, maybe switch jobs, you can get a promotion, but the choice is in your hands.
I oppose government sponsored 'free' health care because in every case all over the world it results in rationing. In the worst cases the government demands to have a monopoly on health care and actually punishes patients and doctors for going outside the government plan to attend to care - the 1993 Clinton Plan included such verbage.
The fact of privitisation in both the UK and Canada is due to both nation's courts ruling that a wait for health care is not access to health care. Meaning that private health care is recognized as a right and not a mere privilege.
Moving on further, European style socialised healthcare is being bankrupted by the millions of lay-about muslims who do not contribute taxes to the healthcare budget yet whom are the principle recipients of such health care with their disproportionate requirements for prenatal and birthing care. Your systems simply cannot stand the pressure unless taxes are raised to 1950's levels to pay for these programs - in which case the UK will once again enjoy the dark, grey, pallid economic stupor of socialism at its peak.
The benefits of our system - being the free market - is found in facts such as that the State of Montana (with a population of less than one million) has more MRI scanners, more CT scanners, more cancer treatment options, and more ICU facilities than does Canada (with a population thirty times that of Montana). I use Montana as my example for the practical reason that Health Canada has established agreements to send their overflow to Montana hospitals due to Montana's ready supply of beds and equipment.
So ask yourself if the Canadian socialised medicine scheme is so superior to that of the USA then why must Canada (a nation rich with oil money) send her patients to one of America's least populated states for critical care? Why can't major Canadian cities afford to provide the same level of care as a predominantly rural state?
On to the issue of pharmacologicals. Canadians enjoy lower prices than Americans do because Canada contracts to buy drugs for thirty million people in the US market - this makes Canada the largest health provider active in the US drug market and they enjoy a tidy group discount - as they should. But take this to the next step and ask how many new drugs or medical procedures have been developed in Canada in the past fifty years? Or maybe you can name a wholly-owned Canadian pharmaceutical firm? You can't.
Again, what success you may see in the Canadian health care system is as a direct benefit of their being able to access the "flawed" American system. Without our health care system to use both as a fall back and as a means to acquire safe medicines at market prices, Canada would be in trouble.
I've pointed this out to my Canadian friends that if the USA were to adopt Canadian style health care in all its facets, then Canadians would die as their health care options and access to inexpensive drugs disappeared.
I trust this helps answer your question?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.