Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Brits are getting a bit testy about US criticism of the NHS. But do they really believe their system is better?

National Health vs. USA

Cal Thomas
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
PORTADOWN, Northern Ireland

For the past month, I have watched British media report and comment on the American health care uproar. American cable networks also are available here. The back-and-forth reporting and commentary resemble a replay of the War of 1812, this time with verbal salvos.

Conservative American politicians and commentators fire at the British National Health Service system, and the British fire back, sometimes on the same program, repeating the Democrats’ mantra of how 47 million Americans are “uninsured” and how medical treatment in the United States depends on how much patients, or their insurance companies, will pay. Here, they say, health care is “free,” thanks to taxpayers, a minority of whom (i.e. the successful) bear ever-greater amounts of the burden.

In the last line above it is funny but sad that someone would characterize a taxpayer funded program as ‘free’. Obviously if taxpayers are funding a program it is not free. Oh, wait a minute, those who don’t pay taxes would see it as free. The idea that if everyone pays into a program they have a stake in keeping costs down is certainly on point in any discussion of government expenditures. And the healthcare issue is no exception.

The British media are conflicted. They patriotically defend the NHS while simultaneously acknowledging its serious shortcomings. One example: A recent Daily Mail editorial praised the NHS for its free care and universal availability but then added, “Our survival rates for breast, prostate, ovarian and lung cancers are among the worst in Europe, despite huge additional expenditure.” Free is nice, but best is better.

And yet those defending the NHS are quick to charge the US system is substandard. As the talk show hosts love to say, then how come so many come to the US for healthcare?

Anyone wishing to revise America’s medical system and model it after the systems in Britain and Canada ought to thoroughly examine how those health care systems function before plunging into the same pool. A reasonable conclusion is that these systems require long waits and treatments (if you can get them) that are inferior to what’s available in the United States, based on government “guidelines” that frequently approve care only if the patient is deemed “worthy of the investment.”

This again leaves us with the reasonable alternative to current proposals for so-called healthcare reform. If this is not in fact a liberal powerplay for more control over citizens then there is no reason to quickly pass legislation and enact laws to control healthcare. The current public debate is a good thing. Continuing with it until a consensus of citizens not leaders points the way to solutions is worthwhile.

Britain defends its health system from criticism in US

By Alice Ritchie (AFP) – Aug 14, 2009

LONDON — British leaders united Friday to defend the country’s state-funded National Health Service, as it comes under fire in an increasingly heated debate in the United States over healthcare reform.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition Conservative leader David Cameron both supported a campaign on the micro-blogging website Twitter in support of the NHS.

Set up in 1948, the tax-funded NHS has grown up to become the largest publicly funded health service in the world.

It is also one of the world’s biggest employers, along with the Chinese army and the Indian railways.

While Britons love to grumble about its flaws, most are fiercely defensive of free-to-access healthcare.

But for many critics in the United States, it represents a bureaucratic, costly nightmare under which patients have no real choice and receive a poor quality of care.

The article above points to some of the reasons Obamacare would be a disaster. A large bureaucracy that would continue to grow and cost more and more requiring less and less in services provided. In both reports (above and below this line) Brits are reported as staunchly defending the NHS. But then isn’t that just like the couple who continuously criticize each other and their marriage? If anyone else adds a critique the couple quickly defends their relationship.

Britons Outraged Over US Conservatives Criticism of British Health Care

By Sonja Pace
London
14 August 2009

Britons are outraged and speaking out in response to comments among Conservatives in the United States attacking Britain’s national health care system as socialist, evil and Orwellian.

Average Britons are usually quite vocal about what they see as the shortcomings of their national health care system, the NHS. But the vehement critique by some conservatives in the United States of the NHS has sparked an outpouring of support here in Britain.

It would be fair to say that those who have experienced no outcome due to lack of a need for healthcare or a good outcome would respond favorably to questions about healthcare. Those with the opposite outcome would be quick to criticize. And it is also fair to say those who favor Obamacare see it as a benefit for their own situation. Most likely meaning they make money on the deal or expect to continue having their healthcare for free. None of which is a good thing in the first place. At least not a good reason to pursue the current healthcare proposals.

Finding free market solutions to healthcare and individuals taking more responsibility for health outcomes is a much better choice than government run anything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 22nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm and is filed under Public Affairs, Health, wordpress, Politics, United States, Britain, Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.