Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[DanaC]

I must say we're all fascinated over here with this debate. British officials and diplomatic staff are walking a very fine line between countering the blatant lies without actually getting involved in your debate.

The comment about Stephen Hawking was particularly amusing. The claims that patients over the age of 60 (or was it 65?) not being allowed heart bypasses was also, by the way, a complete lie.

The gap between recovery rates for American cancer patients and British cancer patients was exaggerated, though we don't have as good a record on survival rates. Whether that is due to budgetary concerns or cultural differences in how and when we access medical care is an argument for people with greater expertise than I.



There are occasions when the system fails, or when the regulatory body does something stupid (as with the case of Lutin treatment for age-related macular degeneration). But then again...the regulatory body is not a private profit making company and when a suficient case has been made that their decision was faulty a new decision can and often is taken: importantly though, it is taken for everyone. The fight for Lutin treatment has now been won, the case made and a new decision taken on allowing its use in the NHS. For every case with clinical need and likely effectiveness. In each of the cases above, where the insurance companies have been persuaded or forced to reassess their decision it is a reassessment for that individual alone. Anyone else encountering the same illogical (in healthcare terms, obviously not in profitmaking terms) decision will have to have that fight all over again.

I am amazed at just how skewed the view of the NHS is over in America. We have higher average life expectancy and pay far less for healthcare. There are certain clinical areas in which we do not shine (cancer treatment for one; though massive strides have been and continue to be made). There are also clinical areas in which we do shine (paediatric care).

Overall I think we get an excellent health service, and we get it way cheaper than you do. There is a tiny minority of people who cannot get the treatment they feel they need for their condition (for instance certain cancer drugs have been seriously limited on the basis that it is not deemed sensible to spend 80k on a single patient if the likely result is an additional 6 months of life) who seek that treatment privately and end up forfeiting their right to continued NHS treatment for that condition. They have a heavy burden and it is very sad. I wish there was something we could do for them. Top up care is not allowed under our system. Private care is allowed and does not disqualify in and of itself from NHS care: but you cannot combine private and NHS treatment for a condition or ilness.

There are gaps. But it really is not the living hell the right wing politiians claim it is.

From the Washington Post in response to the Hawking claim:

As Bookman noted, "Of course, that same Stephen Hawking who wouldn't have a chance in the United Kingdom was in fact born in the United Kingdom, has lived his entire life in the United Kingdom and lives there still today, at the ripe old age of 67. (He was in fact hospitalized earlier this month.) Hawking is, you might say, living, breathing proof that these people are first-class fools."

Ever wonder what the reform debate would be like if conservatives approached it with a shred of intellectual seriousness?

and Hawking's own response:

"If it wasn't for the national health care we have in the UK...
I would have had to rely on private insurance companies...
And my illness would have been declared a pre-existing condition.
I wouldn't be alive right now..."

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I must say we're all fascinated over here with this debate. British officials and diplomatic staff are walking a very fine line between countering the blatant lies without actually getting involved in your debate.

There is no doubt that what is being proposed here is not a NHS style plan. Yet. But what is being proposed and potentially voted on is a government run plan that will be potentially cheaper to run than many employer sponsored plans, and until we know what those costs actually will be we shouldn't be voting on them. How we will be charged and where the money will come from is not specifically dictated in the House Bill. That will come from a different committee. There is a potential, in the way the plan is being crafted, that millions more people will be shuffled to the plan unexpectedly and it is not being designed for that. There are too many holes at this point and must not allow the Demoncratic majority to Rahm it through for political points and political reasons.