![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In light of a recent discussion I was having with some defenders of NHS, I thought this was an interesting article.
As I pointed out in the aforementioned discussion, even Obama is backing away from an NHS-like single payer system because most Americans value choice (read: freedom) over security. This has nothing to do with our being evil bastards who want the old and poor to die in the streets. Regardless of insurance, if you call 911 an ambulance will come and do whatever they can to save you. If you walk into an ER with a medical problem, you will be admitted and the doctors will do whatever they can to save you.
Afterwards, you may get a bill. I say 'may' because ambulance companies and hospitals have been known to simply 'eat' a bill rather than try to squeeze blood from a stone. Sometimes medical bills go to collection. Sometimes hospitals set up payment plans. Is it going to be cheap? No. As was mentioned in the article, in the US you will probably get more tests than you actually need. This is because of the attitude of 'Cover Your Ass' that has sprung up in our litigous society. Doctors don't want to settle on a diagnosis and treatment without exhausting all other possibilities because they're going to get sued if they're wrong, and that can put them out of business. They already pay an insane amount in malpractice insurance. This is why people who are interested in real insurance reform - not ObamaCare - are so interested in exploring tort reform. That's something the malpractice lawyers aren't so keen on.
( Some personal ER antecdotes )
Since this post is pretty long already, I'm going to put the videos of the health-care protest I attended yesterday behind a cut also. I snagged them off Michelle Malkin's site
( ObamaCare protest in San Francisco )
...In treating almost every cancer, America apparently does better than Britain, sometimes appreciably so. According to a study in Lancet Oncology last year, 91.9 per cent of American men with prostate cancer were still alive after five years, compared with only 51.1 per cent in Britain.
The same publication suggests that 90.1 per cent of women in the U.S. diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2002 survived for at least five years, as against 77.8 per cent in Britain.
So it goes on. Overall the outcome for cancer patients is better in America than in this country. So, too, it is for victims of heart attacks, though the difference is less marked.
If you are suspicious of comparative statistics, consult any American who has encountered the NHS. Often they cannot believe what has happened to them - the squalor, and looming threat of MRSA; the long waiting lists, and especially the official target that patients in 'accident and emergency' should be expected to wait for no more than four - four! - hours; the sense exuded by some medical staff that they are doing you a favour by taking down your personal details.
Most Americans, let's face it, are used to much higher standards of healthcare than we enjoy, even after the doubling of the NHS budget under New Labour. Of course, the U.S. is a somewhat richer country, but I doubt its superior health service can be mainly attributed to this advantage.
( Read more... )
As I pointed out in the aforementioned discussion, even Obama is backing away from an NHS-like single payer system because most Americans value choice (read: freedom) over security. This has nothing to do with our being evil bastards who want the old and poor to die in the streets. Regardless of insurance, if you call 911 an ambulance will come and do whatever they can to save you. If you walk into an ER with a medical problem, you will be admitted and the doctors will do whatever they can to save you.
Afterwards, you may get a bill. I say 'may' because ambulance companies and hospitals have been known to simply 'eat' a bill rather than try to squeeze blood from a stone. Sometimes medical bills go to collection. Sometimes hospitals set up payment plans. Is it going to be cheap? No. As was mentioned in the article, in the US you will probably get more tests than you actually need. This is because of the attitude of 'Cover Your Ass' that has sprung up in our litigous society. Doctors don't want to settle on a diagnosis and treatment without exhausting all other possibilities because they're going to get sued if they're wrong, and that can put them out of business. They already pay an insane amount in malpractice insurance. This is why people who are interested in real insurance reform - not ObamaCare - are so interested in exploring tort reform. That's something the malpractice lawyers aren't so keen on.
( Some personal ER antecdotes )
Since this post is pretty long already, I'm going to put the videos of the health-care protest I attended yesterday behind a cut also. I snagged them off Michelle Malkin's site
( ObamaCare protest in San Francisco )
