Hello America!

[angelophile]

Okay, so I know you buggers in the US are having some kind of debate about a welfare state and public healthcare at the moment. I'm not really going to get into the ins and outs of it (except to say that the phrase "free health care" is a misleading one - we all pay for it our taxes in the same way as insurance), but I do have to say that this report gave me a cruel chuckle.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8198084.stm

As the US healthcare debate hots up during Congress's summer recess, anti-reform campaigners have been directing criticisms across the Atlantic at the UK healthcare system.

The most recent row erupted after an editorial at the Investors Business Daily (IBD) launched an attack on the British National Health Service (NHS), as a warning against what could happen if the US adopted such a model.

"The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof are legendary," the article said. "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Anyone point out anything wrong with this statement?

Here's a clue. Check out the article, looking under the headline Basic Supidity.

Comments

[foxfyre.livejournal.com]

Ow. The stupid, it hurts!

[distractedone.livejournal.com]

...How is healthcare over there?

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

Neither as good or bad as pundits over there would have you believe, probably.

It's not entirely free - you have to pay for prescribed medicines if you're working - a set fee of £6. Of course, it's not free health care either - everyone pays for it in their taxes.

In terms of how well the system works - well, the UK's health care isn't the best state funded healthcare system in Europe - it always comes middle of the scale, so the US should be attempting better. However, my experiences have always been good-ish. I've rarely needed any real health care, just the occasional meds, and my GP hasn't been the greatest, but then neither are a lot of private doctors.

On the other hand, when my dad had a dizzy spell he went into our GP and, because he was on holiday, he saw the heart specialist instead who immediately suspected a heart problem. Within 2 weeks he'd has an EKG, 24 hour heart monitoring and had been fitted with a pacemaker he badly needed (his pulse rate was so slow his heart was actually stopping in the night). Likewise my mum's had numerous serious health problems in her life and always received prompt treatment (although sometimes not as prompt for tests etc).

You do hear some horror stories too, though, usually involving the elderly. I know when my gran deteriorated in her nursing home and had to go into hospital for a few days, she never really recovered from it. But I'm not sure it's fair to blame the system for that.

So, in all, I think the NHS do very well. They suffer from upper management not holding the purse strings tightly enough and too much red tape, but the actual "ground troops", in my experience, have been excellent.

[distractedone.livejournal.com]

Good to know! People are just up and at 'em about it, crying 'SOCLAISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' and 'END TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!' because they just don't understand the system.

I'm on 'All Kids' right now, so right when I turn 18, I'm going to lose my insurance, and I cannot afford any of the drugs I'm on now.

My main basis for universal health care (in America, Obama is barely proposing socialized medicine) is that I think it's wrong pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and doctors make so much money off another person's unfortunate health circumstances.

Now, I hear France has some of the best healthcare, and they are socialized medicine too? :) Y'know, I think it mostly depends on who's running the program, because it just really depends what country or what area you're living in.