Please watch this profound statement given by Congressman Mike Rodgers of Michigan on the new Health Care Reform Bill. He's says it all.







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Please read this profound speech by Rev. Jim Rigby!!

September 2, 2009

Last week supporters of health-care reform gathered around the country, including in Austin, TX, where 2,000 people crowded into a downtown church to hear speakers talk about different aspects of the issue. Asked to speak about the ethical dimensions of health care, I tried to go beyond short-term political strategizing and ask more basic questions. This is an edited version of what I said.

Is anyone else here having trouble with the fact that we are even having this conversation? Is anyone else having trouble believing this topic is really controversial? I have been asked to talk about the ethical dimension of health care. Here's one way to frame such a discussion:

If an infant is born to poor parents, would we be more ethical to give medicine to that child so he or she does not die prematurely of preventable diseases, or would we be more ethical if we let the child die screaming in his or her parent's arms so we can keep more of our money?

Or, let's say someone who worked for Enron, and now is penniless, contracted bone cancer. I've been asked to discuss whether we are more ethical if we provide such people medicine that lessens their pain. Or would we be more ethical to let them scream through the night in unbearable agony so we can pay lower taxes?

I can't believe I am standing today in a Christian church defending the proposition that we should lessen the suffering of those who cannot afford health care in an economic system that often treats the poor as prey for the rich. I cannot believe there are Christians around this nation who are shouting that message down and waving guns in the air because they don't want to hear it. But I learned along time ago that churches are strange places; charity is fine, but speaking of justice is heresy in many churches. The late Brazilian bishop Dom Hélder Câmara said it well: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." Too often today in the United States, if you talk about helping the poor, they call you Christian, but if you actually try to do something to help the poor, they call you a socialist.

Some of the other speakers today have been asked to address what is possible in the current political climate. I have been asked to speak of our dreams. Let me ask a question. How many of you get really excited about tweaking the insurance system so we just get robbed a little less? (silence) How many of you want universal health care? (sustained applause) I realize that insurance reform is all that's on the table right now, and it can be important to choose the lesser of evils when that alone is within our power in the moment. But we also need to remember our dream. I believe the American dream is not about material success, not about being having the strongest military. The American dream is that every person might have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It's amazing to hear Christians who talk about the right to life as though it ends at birth. They believe every egg has a right to hatch, but as soon as you're born, it's dog eat dog. We may disagree on when life begins, but if the right to life means anything it means that every person (anyone who has finished the gestation period) has a right to life. And if there is a right to life there must be a right to the necessities of life. Like health care.

I believe the American dream was not about property rights, but human rights. Consider the words of this national hymn:

"O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years. Thine alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears."

Doesn't that sound like someone cared about the poor? There are those who consider paying taxes an affront, but listen to these words:

"O Beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life."

"Mercy more than life" -- have you ever noticed those words before? Supporting universal health care does not make you socialist or even a liberal, it makes you a human being. And it makes you an ambassador for the American dream which, in the mind of Thomas Paine, was a dream for every human being, not just Americans. As we struggle to get health care to all people, we may have to settle for the lesser of two evils, but remember your dream -- the true American dream, a human dream. Whatever we win through reform is just first step toward a day when every human being has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Rev. Jim Rigby is pastor of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin.

How about letting thosecitizens that are uninsured apply for medicaid...and leave the other 80% that do have private insurance and want to keep it, alone.

Hi Virginia,
I am sleep deprived and very tired today so bear with me if I didn't correctly "get" the meaning of your post. I do not know one single person who has expressed concern with the healthcare reform bill as it is today who thinks we should not be "ethical" or moral in our approach. I'm thinking that the very Rev. Rigby is mixing apples with oranges here. Of course he has made some elequent and moving points. However, the issue is NOT about whether or not every single person in America has health care. The ISSUE is about HOW we are going to go about achieving this and HOW we are going pay for it. As a nurse, I absolutely believe that basic health care is a human right and that no one should suffer needlessly just because they cannot afford care. I am a Palliative Care/Hospice nurse and I care for those at the end of their lives everyday in my job. Not once have I given any regard to the insurance coverage or ability to pay for any of my patients. It simply is not a concern for me. I do understand how the hospital feels ... though it is a non-profit facility, it still needs to "make money" to keep it's doors open. There has to be some way to recoop what is spent to care for those who cannot afford to pay but they are NEVER turned away nor is care ever suboptimal. These people get the exact care as those who have insurance or are private pay. I think my issue is not the coverage for those who haven't any now... of course they should have it. But there are so many things that could be changed about the way that we do it now that would more than make up the difference. Why aren't we doing something about those things instead of turning our healthcare over to the government? In my opinion, I'm not impressed with any government run or "supervised" agency or program I've come into contact with. The size of this program will be enormous and dwarf any other government agency already in existence. I for one, do not want a larger government nor more control over my life. I believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans are intelligent, hardworking, industrious people at heart and the government gets in the way of our ingenuity. I believe that we could find solutions to this problem if we were given the chance. Do the American people REALLY want government to be that involved in your everyday life? Just listen to people complain about things...have you ever heard anyone praise the IRS? Believe me, I have had to "deal" with them when THEY made a mistake onetime many years ago. It took 18 months to convince them that THEY owed US the money, not the other way around. I do not trust the government to run ANY program or agency efficiently, there is simply too waste and too many fingers in the pie. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox cuz my eyes are falling out of my head. LOL I do not mean to step on any toes here as everyone is free to their own opinion. I would hope that it's remembered that those of us who are concerned about certain aspects of this bill are also entitled to ours.

I am with you coastergirl!!!!

Maybe the Obama Health Care plan is not the best, but the other side is even WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Churches are divided just in 2 parts : REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS. I'm sick of all this game That's why I refuse go to the new "religions politicals mettings " I wont let now REV OR PRIEST to brain wash me and make me believe what they thing is right or wrong. And if I'm doing wrong, God will be my judge.


menosick

You are 100% right and everyone is free to their own opinion!! I liked what this man said so I posted it. I don't know if the health reform they are working on now is the best thing BUT something needs to be done and instead of people working together it's turning into such a freakin fight between the two parties. If the government doesn't do something nobody will and then what??

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. What I posted was from our local paper where people could post their opinions just like in here and I just liked what he had to say. I never thought about the fact that he was a Rev and people would take what I posted as you should do what your priest or pastor told you to do. Many people that are against Obama's Health Care plan are yelling that if you would even dare to think his plan could do some good then you are a socialist and on and on so when I read the post I posted I found it refreshing to read!! Sorry if it seemed like I was endorsing people to do what religious leaders say!!

Hi Virginia,
Yes, something needs to be done and very soon. I sort of like the idea that NC had about medicaid ... at least in the interim while we work on a well crafted, well thought out plan. We really need to be looking at this problem as AMERICANS, not Republicans or Democrats. That just stirs the pot right off the bat. It isn't a political issue, it's a HUMAN one. Why aren't we letting the people who actually are intimately involved in healthcare figure out how we can save money? I don't know a single Dr. who is for the plan as it stands right now and while the professional groups are for it, I personally know that most of us want something different. We see everyday how screwed up medicare can be and the private insurance companies are no better in most cases. It is a huge problem and not one that can be fixed in a few months and certainly not one that can be fixed by just tossing the thing to the government to take care of. Yikes, that just scares the hell out of me. We need to get this away from the politicians who don't seem to know how to solve ANY of our problems by working together. They are all too busy throwing lies and blame back and forth to actually accomplish anything. Has anyone ever noticed how BOTH parties are against bloated government, high taxes, war in Iraq/Afghanisan, coorporate greed, joblessness, etc., etc., etc.? Has anyone noticed that for that "being against that", nothing changes no matter what party is in charge? It's a big joke on all of us and the only way we can get change is to take back our power. Vote the bastards out of office after one term and maybe after a couple elections, they'll get it that we are sick and tired of them not listening to us. Sorry, I found myself back on that stupid soapbox again. didn't mean to ... just got carried away. I think my point is ... we need to work together as Americans on all our problems and leave the lies, deception and spin out of things. I don't believe that politicians are cabable of this.
Peace!
Jan

Putting our legal uninsured citizens on medicaid, as I said earlier, seems to me to be a very simple logical solution. The program is already in place in every state. It would simply be a matter of enrolling them. I should think both parties could agree on that.

Medicaid was originally intended for poverty level individuals. Why not just add annual income level criteria and let those people opt in for a modest monthly investment?

That way the 80% of us that have and like our private insurance are left alone.

But nooooooo, that makes way to much common sense for Washington.

Amen coastergirl!

Amen Sister!!!! Those in Washington wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face!

But we still need to stop doing some of the things that cost scads of money with no return. It's a waste of resources. I think it's important to remember that for every person who gets "everything done" when there is no hope of recovery, there is someone who is denied a life saving treatment, surgery or transplant and who will die without it. When this happens, at the end of the day we have TWO people dead instead of one. Often times, the one who is tortured with unnecessary treatments (not to mention futile), didn't want it anyway. It's the family who makes these decisions based on emotion not taking into account that Grandma is 95 years old and has been in generally poor health for years. Maybe Grandma has had a stroke or has dementia so bad that she has no quality of life whatsoever. Which is more humane for Grandma, keeping her alive on machines and sticking her with needles every so many hours and doing surgical procedures which will do nothing to improve her quality of lie. OR, do we accept that we will all die and that God will call us when he's ready. Before anyone gets the idea I'm promoting euthanasia please read carefully what I've said. I'm calling for all of us to realize that there's a time to accept that there are worse things than a natural, peaceful death. I am NOT calling for withholding treatment just because someone can't pay or because they are old, etc. Absolutely NOT!!! If there is hope, there should be treatment but when there isn't or when the patient is suffering needlessly, it's time to let go for the patient's sake, not hold on for ours. And for those who might think that this is probably a rare occurance, let me assure you that it is absolutely NOT rare at all. In fact, I see it every single day in the ONE 270 bed hospital in ONE relatively small town in ONE very small state. The cost of this type of thing for one patient can go into the $100,000 range or more easily and the patient dies anyway. Think of how many uninsured children would be covered. Who would you choose to spend those resources on if you absolutely HAD to choose between the two. Someone who is going to die regardless of what we do or a young viable child who has his whole life's potential in front of him. It's no different than if you had to choose who to save from a terrible accident.

Virginia:
I liked immensely what Rigby had to say. Thank you for posting.
Avi

Actually Coastergirl, what you have described is some of the "bare bones" of the plan. The percentages are not entirely accurate nor is the assumption that those of us (and I am one) that have private insurance are satisfied. Part of the plan is heavy regulation of the insurance agency and that is sorely needed.
Private insurance companies and HMO's are a big part of the financial mess that Healthcare has become and, incidentally are some of the largest detractors of reform.

What you are sayin sounds alot like what one part of the health reform had in it that had people so angry. Being able to talk to someone before you get to that point in your life and getting it down on paper so your family doesn't have to decide those thing. I think that is a great idea to have your wishes on end of life issues down on paper before you are too ill to deccide for yourself anymore but that is what got so many people upset that we would let grandma die!!

k
The percentages are close. But you are right....I'm sure there are a few with private insurance that are unhappy with it. However the part about "heavy regulation of insurance" by the government, is a major reason the majority of those of us with private insurance are very much opposed to this so called plan. We don't want the government anywhere near us, our insurance, or our choices.

What I don't understand is that some in congress are saying that we have the best health care system in the world.....ahh no, France does. We're #37 on the scale. That's not good enough! To me, if you don't know that, how can you protest a health care plan?

Yes, that part got people's undies in a bundle. Mostly because it was twisted into something it isn't. I don't disagree with all aspects of the plan nor the idea that all people deserve care/coverage. I just don't want the government so intimately involved. I've read a good bit of the plan myself and it's not all bad but it still needs work and refinement. Wouldn't it be nice if we could somehow legislate the insurance companies so that everyone is covered adequately and yet the company still makes a profit (albeit maybe a smaller one)...after all, that's the free market system and why they are in business in the first place. They have simply become too greedy. It's like Las Vegas...the odds are ALWAYS in their favor.

Jan,
First off I have to say the 'undies in a bundle' was funny!! I agree with what you have said and I really liked that you understand that the insurance companies DO need to make a profit. I do know there are some bad insurance companies out there but I don't think they are all as horrible as people think they are. They are a business just like Wal Mart and Target and need to make a profit to pay their employees just like any other business and if you see what they have to pay out when you have a claim you have to understand that can't insure you as cheap as people would like. I can't say that I really want the government running health care but I'm afraid if the government doesn't do anything nothing will ever get done and that's not ok.

I don't think letting the government do it will solve anything - and will probably make it a lot worse. Think about it, all the things the government controls now are either bankrupt or going bankrupt - Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mack, ect. And the Post Office loses money every year - partially because the government won't let it make changes that would make it more profitable. If they take over our health care, look forward to long lines and rationing. Unlike Canada and England presently, when we can't get treated in our country, there will no longer be an US to go to for treatment. Our health care will be as bad as theirs. Just remember - no one goes untreated now - hospitals are required to take everyone whether they can pay or not. We should reform some parts of the system, but throwing out a system that is working for most to pick up a system that has failed everywhere it is tried - not a good idea! I, for one, would like to get treatment if I get cancer - not get a pill to make me forget about it as our president suggested!!!

Zelma

What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information from????? Dont you realise that your ignorant comments offend the British people on this board????? If you want to educate yourself about British health care and gain a true and balanced view, then do some proper research, and STOP allowing yourself to be manipulated by The Fox News Channel.


And just to remind you ---

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.

A lot of European countries rank in the top 20 -

England come in at 18 and the US in at 37.

EP---I have a question that I hope you can answer. I don't pretend to know much about British health care, that's why I'm asking. Very dear friends of ours have relatives who live in England. They come to visit frequently and we have been in their company on many occasions. From time to time we discuss England's health care. The gentleman from England is not pleased for several reasons but one in particular sticks in my mind.

He said scheduling a dental appointment takes quite some time. He has one scheduled for next February and it has been scheduled for 5 months. He says that in England it is not considered important for small children to see a dentist for regular checkups and therefore his grandaughter (6 years old) has never been to the dentist. He tried to give up his scheduled appointment and let his little grandaughter have it, but was not allowed. Can this be true? I don't know why he would say it if it weren't.

I'm not trying to start a controversy----just curious and somewhat aghast at the possibility that this information could be accurate.

Thanks for listening.

Donna

Honestly, unless we all have degrees in statistics, I'm not sure I'd sling around the "ignorant" word. I find it a bit inflammatory.

My understanding of those health- care-by-country statistics is, if one takes out death by car crashes and murder (which in the U.S. is unfortunate, but not really indicative of the efficacy of our health care system) the U.S. is still one of the top countries in good health care. In addition, that particular study included premature babies in the infant mortality figure; the U.S. will go to great lengths to save preemies, when other countries may not consider their ability to live viable. So, that skews our infant mortality rates as we report failure to survive as a death, and other countries may not use the same definition as they don't try medical intervention.

You are more likely to survive the top four cancers (breast, colon, prostate, rectum) in the U.S. due to our advanced care in those areas. This is from a report from Michel Coleman, MD, a professor of epidemiology and vital statistics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the study's lead author.

Gee, and I didn't even hear that on Fox But I understand that stereotypes run rampant in all directions.

Claws in, ladies.

kimber

I have private insurance and I am for health reform. You do not say as to whether you pay your own premium or your employer pays if for you. In either case, Medicaid is NOT the answer. Hospitals and doctors take a loss on assisted patients. Who do you think makes that up? It comes in the form of raising medical costs and insurance premiums. I know this is fact as I worked in medical billing for many years. Since you like that insurance you have, it must be employer paid right? What happens when the cost of your employer's insurance premiums for your care become so high that he cannot afford to keep you or give you a raise? The reality is that this does happen. I can't imagine that anyone would sell their soul to an insurance company, who, by the way, donate billions of OUR insurance premium dollars to politicians to spread rumors of 'putting grandma to sleep' (cruel that they think we would buy into that one) to stop any sort of reform. I guess though that if I were the insurance company raking in billions and billions I might sink that low too. It really is an insult to all of us that those insurance companies would think us that foolish to believe their propaganda in the name of profit!

Donna - I think I can help out here as I'm in the UK!

Firstly - the dental NHS is treated very separately from the medical NHS (unless it involves a hospital treatment/ op when it comes under medical like the other stuff). We do not get the same free service on dental as the medical but we do get a subsidised service where people pay a reduced fee for treatment.

Unlike our medical service where we all get free GP care and hospital care (and with private healthcare also available as a top up for those who want it) which all works very well; with dental to be honest, there is some shortage of NHS dentists. This is because over recent years many of them have gone private due to wanting to be paid more money. A few years ago this problem didn't exist and it needs addressing but it is not the end of the story.
I stress is a dental service issue - nothing to do with the medical side where we have plenty of medical GPs etc to go around and they earn good money. Having said that there are many options available to people as I mention below....

It is advised in the UK to see a dentist every 6 months. That goes for children & adults alike. There is no problem once you are "on the books" with an NHS dentist getting an appointment within a few days or sooner if urgent. The problem is really finding an NHS one near to you in the first place that has a space. If you aren't registered with one though, yes, it could take a few months for a place to become available at your nearest NHS dentist. BUT if you travel to a nearby large town you can usually get in somewhere, especially children. Also we have many, many private dentists that can see people immediately and the fee for a checkup with them is still affordable. They cannot "charge what they like".

Perhaps your friend was not on the books of an NHS dentist and had to wait 5 months for a place to come up?
I honestly have never ever heard of a child of 6 never having been able to see a dentist in the UK. That is just nonsense. Obviously I don't know the details of your friend's grandaughter, but we have dentists come to the schools here, handing out toothpaste and talking to the kids about cleaning teeth etc and the importance of regular 6 month visits. It's taken very seriously. My own son last year has a dental disclosing tablet session at school. We are a very modern developed & educated country and this just wouldn't happen unless by parent choice/ lack of effort in finding one. Please do not listen to the scare stories about the NHS here - we honestly have a very good healthcare system.

And do all Americans have access to that care? Or only the ones that pay a high premium insurance??

"Health care in the US remain mired in debates over pricing and reimbursement, secrecy among competing organisations, timidity about admitting that quality problems exist, and continuing tolerance of the national shame of over 40 million uninsured Americans. The WHO ranked the UK 18th out of 191 countries in the performance of its healthcare system; but it ranked the United States (which spends 40% more per head on health care than Britain) 37th, partly because the American health care system is so inequitable ---"

The insurance companies have been doing what they want since the 80's when Reagan dismantled the non-profit health insurance system and turned everything over to those who sought to make huge profits from illness.
Insurance companies have people who's job it is to look for ways to deny coverage to people and are paid bonuses based on how much they save the company money. That's your fabulous health care system --


Here is a youtube link that a friend of mine sent to me ---

Sick for profit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4TsaHmtgfA...player_embedded

Thanks for responding to Donna's question, Squigs -- I was just about to, but you pipped me to the post!

Good for you EP-stand up for UK!
Quite honestly I would rather be here than US for medical treatment.
The NHS is top notch in my opinion.

When I was diagnosed with cancer I had an MRI scan, all tests done and surgery within 2 weeks, by one of the most respected gyn/oncs in the country. (He was actually the one who saved the life of Sophie of Wessex when she had an emergency caesarian in 2003)-so I was in good company! I didn't have to pay anything or have any health plan in place before it could be done.
That Youtube link was an eye-opener EP and thanks for posting it! How dreadful

Squiggle-Great reply too about the dental services here.

I am sure sometimes our friends across the pond think we still live in the dark ages. No we don't. We have one of the best and fairest healthcare systems in the world.

janet c

This is happening more and more as more companies & government agencies are opting to hire contract labor to avoid paying benefits. Not just medical but retirement benefits which make it too costly.

I have an example that troubles me. I'm not sure how I feel about it but I'll throw it out here.

I have a Sister-n-law & brother-n-law. Both are alcoholics, BNL recently was laid off from a minimum wage job. SNL seldom work, preferring to stay home, bottle in hand and whine about her miserable life. While BNL was working, he was making just a little over min wage and no benefits. They couldn't afford insurance so didn't go to the doctor. Now that he is unemployed, he gets unemployment, food stamps and medical card (at least I believe they have a medical card, I know they have gone for medical treatment for non emergencies and don't believe they would do this if they thought they would have to pay for it when they wouldn't do so before.) The problem I have is ...financially it appears they are better off having no job than they were when having a low paying job. How is this the american way? Although an alcololic BNL has always worked, many times working 1 FT job + 2 PT jobs. Obviously they were mismanaging the funds they were getting if they were buying alcohol rather than insurance but that is often the case when a bottle of booze is cheaper than a month of insurance premium. So I suppose that is why the new HC bill is mandating insurance and making everyone (of a certain income level) pay for it. Although I don't care for this, I can see where it has it's merit.

Sorry if I've just rambled.. I'm still undecided if I like this bill or not.

Bottom line is nobody wants to pay higher taxes so someone else can get health care. These same people don't seem to mind that their taxes pay for illegal and immoral wars and B1 bombers. Where are the protests then?

People are so scared that the GOVERNMENT is going to dictate their health care. Well, who do you think has been dictating your health care for the past 20+ years? BIG, PRIVATELY OWNED INSURANCE COMPANIES. They have been holding the cards. They have been telling your doctors what they can and cannot prescribe to help and heal you. They have dictated how long your doctor gets to sit and chat with you. They can deny you at any time coverage for a pre-existing condition.

So, really, I don't understand what the hubbub is all about.

As for Medicaid? Do you have any idea how many hoops you need to jump through to even be considered for that and that there are strict income guidelines?

Thanks Squiggs. I don't know if the gentleman I am talking about is on the books with an NHS dentist. That's something I'll have to ask him next visit. I know they live in a very small town near the border of Scotland----maybe there aren't many NHS dentists around.

Another question for you if you don't mind When you say you get free GP and hospital care, is it actually free or do you pay for it in tax dollars and are you being taxed to provide health care for individuals who do not work? I think that is a big worry on the minds of many US citizens right now.

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it.

Donna

Bravo Bookworm! You so get it

I'm wondering if the people that are against government health care reform will be accepting their social security when of age, and medicare?

[quote name='Bookworm56' date='Sep 27 2009, 08:49 PM' post='311602']
Bottom line is nobody wants to pay higher taxes so someone else can get health care. These same people don't seem to mind that their taxes pay for illegal and immoral wars and B1 bombers. Where are the protests then?


Quite the contrary Booky. I actually do have many issues with how my tax dollars are spent.

Is there actually going to be any Social Security left when we come of age----and didn't we all pay into that for many many years

Good Question!

We pay a charge called National Insurance out of our pay which is approx 11% of the gross pay up to a limit of around $60K and then just 1% of earnings above that. However, this not only pays into the NHS but also for the unemployment benefit system and the state pension system which currently everyone over 65 receives. So it is hard to say just how much of it is the cost of the NHS.

For this we never have to worry about when we need a doctor or hospital care - it's free and unlimited - we never think twice - we just go! I have health anxiety and so you can imagine how often I have needed reassurance by a doctor on various matters. We never have to worry about having to prove we have insurance details after an accident - we are just taken to hospital & treated. Yes the NHS covers everyone and provides a basic human right - a high level of good basic healthcare for all.

What the NHS doesn't cover is guaranteed private rooms for non-serious cases, choice of specific surgeon (although there are ways around this cos we can choose the hospital we go to & hence the doctor as my hubby did below). But these things can be paid for privately because having the NHS here doesn't mean we don't have private healthcare available in addition for those who want to pay for it. We have lots of choice!

I am able to choose between appointments with 4 different doctors at my GP office (we call it a GP practice) depending on what is troubling me (ie a female doc, a young open minded guy, an old experienced guy etc etc). Also, if I'm not happy with them I can move immediately to a different office.

I pay a prescription charge of around $10 if I need medicine (free at a hospital) but don't need to pay for the drugs themselves. People on low pay or with conditions such as diabetes are exempt from this fee though. If the medicine is cheap anyway and available OTC, I might choose to buy it rather than pay the prescription fee - eg Ibruprofen.

To be honest, like any system we have our controversies. There are a very few very expensive medicines required by certain rare conditions which the NHS controversially does not cover and some people believe that is should. These arguments will always go on. The NHS is good baseline treatment for the many and cannot currently afford a few extremely expensive rare drugs. But this is being looked into I believe. Meanwhile if a person doesn't have private top up insurance (which most don't) such meds can usually be bought privately if needed and private fundraising often goes on by friends & family with the help of the media for someone with such a condition to pay for them. It is worth noting that private insurance companies often don't cover pre-existing conditions here either (but the NHS does).

People talk about delays for operations etc in the NHS. Well my Hubby waited just 2 weeks recently for a non-urgent shoulder op on the NHS. I don't think that is bad at all. He received excellent care throughout the whole process. Cancer referrals here are carried out very quickly indeed, the GP will call the hospital while you are in the room with him & set something up for the same or next day with the specialist. If ops are required, they are carried out with urgency by the hospital.
Last year my GP thought I had a mastoid behind my ear - I was referred to the hospital same day - they don't muck around. (Turned out to be a hugely swollen gland from a virus!)
If I need to see a GP urgently here, I can see him the same day, other appointments vary between same day and 3 days. At my docs office they also have a drop in clinic twice a week, no appointment required. We have 24 hour out of hours doctors if we need help in the middle of the night or at weekends too.

Hope that helps

Thanks for replying so quickly Squiggs. Have a wonderful day!

Donna

I'm British and I'm not offended. Here are some hard facts about our disgusting medical system. Currently husband pays approx $2500 a month in tax and supporting our horrible healthcare system. Added to that he pays another $200 a month for private medical insurance incase we get sick. On top of that he pays for my bio identical hormone treatments, blood tests and consultations. Approx cost is $1500 a year. If we had a marvelous medical system we would not be paying extra for private treatment.BIO Identical not available from NHS.
The NHS does several things - if your regular doctor wants to recommend a certain procedure or drug unless it is approved of by the trust you just don't get it. This is used to block women from having hrt and when they get it - treatment is frequently rationed and limited. Need to see a dentist? sure you can see one on the NHS but unless you are getting benefits you pick up a big chunk of the bill.
We have horror stories of folk pulling out their own teeth - that is why the British are known for their awful teeth most of them can't get a decent dentist.
Our hospitals are like conveyor belts with patients being shoved quickly through the consultation line then being sent elsewhere because of targets being met.
I wouldn't wish our awful socialist system on anyone.
The staff are frequently rude and uncaring, the buildings are dismal and filthy. There is no excuse for using large quantities of industrial grey paint - except for to depress the patient.
Frequently patients are cramped together in a dark dingy hall as there are no waiting rooms and we pay through the nose for awful dehumanising care.
An elderly friend of mine has heart trouble and needs an angioplasty - they refuse him on the grounds that his artery might not be 75% blocked but they did the other one and although it would have cost little extra to attend to two they refused to consider it and as he is in his 70's they don't give a s***
But they spend plenty of money employing managers and putting televisions with dreary loops giving government lectures to the captive audiences and charging us a fortune to park the car for medical treatment.
It is a sick joke and I fail to understand what there is to admire and the poorest in society still get the worst treatment because they rely on the NHS.
Louise

Its still better than what they have in the US so you should be careful what you are saying! No-the NHS does not always rush through non urgent cases and I agree our hospitals can leave a lot to be desired. However they treat urgent life threatening cases without delay, free of charge. As I said in my earlier post-I was diagnosed with cancer and had all my treatment including surgery within two weeks.
As you say-there is still private health care available too. I, myself have it to cover routine but not emergency conditions.
There are so many people living so much longer and so many conditions that can be treated that there never used to be. I think it is fair enough that the NHS treats the urgent ones first.
Please do not paint quite such a bleak picture of UK. Nothing is perfect anywhere but what we have is still pretty darn good. Why do you think we have so many immigrants?

janet c

I'm sorry Louise but you are painting a ridiculous and very incorrect picture of the NHS that I've experienced. As Janet says - no system is perfect but we are very, very lucky to have the one we have.

I think what is driving me and many Americans crazy is the conflicting information we get from countries that already have government controlled health care.

Squiggle, JanetC and Louise all from the UK paint such different scenarios and how do we know what to believe. How do we know what a government controlled system here in the US will mean for us? It is definitely scary. I am and have always been extremely wary when it comes to believing politicians so I can't place my trust in what they are tellling us.

I don't know what the final outcome will be, but I think it's really really difficult to procur accurate information and that is what frightens me.

Respectfully,
Donna

And just to add - i just looked at my Hubby's payslip - I'm presuming you are talking about Tax and not National Insurance when you state that figure - otherwise you must be a millionaire or something if that is your NI contribution.
The tax figure you refer to pays for many many other things in the Uk - education, defence etc etc and is not relevant to discussions about the NHS!
You need to look at the NI figure that he pays.

We have the option of private insurance through my Hubby's work as a top up to the NHS. We have actually opted not to take it as it is the private insurance that gets taxed quite heavily as a perk.

Donna - there will always be people to find something to whinge about, whatever the system they have. I think you just have to trust that we are not all dying of horrid diseases over here in the UK and that we are a modern country with very good healthcare.
I really appreciated the nice way you asked about our healthcare in the UK and didn't judge us and I felt welcome to offer my answer.
Many of us Brits (and no doubt the Canadians & Aussies too) get fed up with the slagging off of our countries' systems by some people in debates such as this, just to score points over the other side. How would they feel if we started slagging off America like that?
Whatever you end up with in the US won't be exactly the same as in the UK anyway. What you pay and the service it provides etc will be set by your own government and be a result of consensus over there.
Thank you again for showing an interest and being so polite about it

I understand your confusion, Donna - It must be a very difficult and uncertain time for the American people. I dont want to add to your confusion but maybe this might help in debunking universal healthcare myths.

Like Squiggles, I would also like to thank you for your graceful approach and the interest you have shown in our healthcare system.


For a person born and raised in the United Kingdom, I had never seriously thought about a life without access to free health-care. The National Health Service (NHS) brought me into the world with little problem and I still assume that it would ease me out from this world with dignity. Up until I turned a teenager, I had long assumed that health-care was universally free everywhere. When I was eight I had learned the Hippocratic oath via a history book and learnt that all doctors and health-care providers must provide treatment to everyone. This made complete sense to me and I had not thought that a system contrary to the British NHS model existed until I found out as a teenager. The idea of a US style health system, whereby people must sign up for private insurance and hospitals can refuse treatment for people without health insurance still baffles me. So Obama's recent health-care proposals to implement a pseudo-universal health-care system seemed like straight commonsense.

However, the divided American response baffled me even more. Numerous public meetings have been held whereby angry conservatives claim that the Obama reforms would implement a socialist and totalitarian governmental system and would have death panels whereby shadowy bureaucrats would decide whether the elderly and disabled live or die. It was further exasperated by the illogical ramblings of the Republican party. Particularly Sarah Palin's claim that Obama wants to kill my baby. The large proportion of the conservative attacks on Obama's 4000 page healthcare reform proposals are largely or perhaps entirely rooted in myth.

Perhaps the only legitimate fear of UHC would be the costs incurred to the average citizen. UHC will not be completely free. Citizens would have to pay somewhat greater taxes for this service. Some cautious detractors claim supporting this system would be far too expensive. However, Obama's Single-Payer universal health-care plan is in fact cheaper than the current US system. The current US health-care system employs a flat rate premium which does not distinguish between an individuals ability to pay for a particular rate. The Single-Payer plan is calculated on the basis of income tax which allows families to pay based upon their needs. Instead of the current system whereby a family earning $25,000 annually and a family earning $60,000 are expected at times to pay the same flat rate premium, the health reforms will save on money for poorer families by allowing them to pay according to their own needs. In addition to this any increases in tax would be calculated upon relative income.

In addition to this, I'm always stumped to as why people have problems paying for universal services. I went to a private school, but I have no problems with my mother's taxes being taken out to fund other people going into education. The idea that we should only as one prominent conservative put it pay your own bills is very limited. Sure, if we're talking about welfare benefits then the fear that they might be abused is a very legitimate fear. However in a society whereby 19,000 people die annually literally outside the hospital doors and an even greater amount have their health deteriorated due to lack of private health insurance, the lack of universal health-care seems appalling. Conservative Republicans are always clamouring for greater family values and a return to a community based America. Yet, how can Americans accomplish this if they are not willing to support the poorer echelons of society. I mean you wouldn't tell me to not pay taxes towards bettering the schools in my area because I'm going to a private school. If I were to do so it would be highly selfish. We are not a society of individuals. We should all try to better the standards of not only ourselves, but everyone.

Another myth, spurned on by irrational conservatives is that the Obama administration plans to implement death panels. This myth at essence is laughable and questions the reading ability of some prominent government figures. In Obama's 4000 page reforms a paragraph exists which states that elderly citizens can opt for end-of-life counselling available though Medicare. Essentially this counselling gives advice on legal matters, highlighting alternative treatments and so forth. It is not even compulsory. Yet for some inexplicable reason, a conservative commentator unintentionally (or intentionally) misread this and claimed that bureaucratic panels of maleficent figures would decide whether a patient is 'wasting' resources and decide to terminate their life. Somehow this rumour mongering spread to Sarah Palin, who went one yard further and declared this extends not only to the disabled, but that Barack Obama wants to see her disabled son die. Did logic somehow elude the Republican party? Do they all share a collective level of 3rd grade reading skills? With this said, why are the more logical Republicans reluctant to dismiss this claim? The irony is, is that those same people who are against government intervention in health-care were the same people who clamoured for government intervention to force Terri Schiavo to stay alive. This sounds like more like the fabricated death-panels than the actual Obama reforms.


Another rather hilarious claim by the naysayer members of the conservative base is that somehow Obama's health-care proposals resemble a totalitarian socialist system and even more baffling, Nazism. First of all, much of Europe has implemented universal health-care and do not resemble North Korea or the USSR. In addition to this, Obama's Single-Payer health plan does not make state employees out of doctors and health workers. Single-Payer health only provides funding for health insurance, but largely stays out of the actual treatment of patients. Whereas in the British NHS, doctors are employees of the NHS, American doctors would retain their current employment status. Universal Health-care is no more socialist than public education. Conservatives are used to throwing the Communist fear factor into various debates to scare voters from seeing the truth. If UHC is so socialist, why are these Republicans not clamouring for the dismemberment of the United Kingdom and France? Why are these Republicans not campaigning for an end to public education? It is for the simple fact that these are all scare tactics with no basis in logic. And as for the ridiculous Nazism claim, UHC existed in Germany since the 1860s. Adolf Hitler's regime actually tried to dismember the health-care plan. Who are the real Nazis now?

Many conservatives have claimed that personal choice would be restricted under Obama's health-care reforms. If conservatives are arguing that patient choice would be restricted under free health care, then I think conservatives need to look closer at the current American health system. Under the current US system, is there not a myriad of forms to sign up for various 'pre-existing conditions?' For example if you have diabetes, heart conditions or other pre-existing ailments then private insurance is frequently denied. This effectively creates a system whereby the very sick or elderly are prohibited from treatment. In addition are not 47 million Americans prohibited from private insurance and health-care under this system? Furthermore, under Obama's health-care plans people can opt for private treatment as well as universal health-care. Local Health Authorities are also in effect in many European nations which have universal healthcare. These allow the patient to exercise some say on health-care services in the community. Besides, you can easily go to a private doctor if you choose. You even have a choice of the type of treatment you receive.

Ultimately, America will have to filter out the myths of health-care being perpetrated by the Right. The opinions spouted by the Republican party and other conservatives are generated not to benefit the average American, but rather to damage the Democratic party's credibility. The tribalism that has taken a firm grip on the Republican party since the Bush and Cheney years has resulted in the victory of illogical rhetoric over reason. Until conservatives can take a step back and recognise how to filter stupidity from fact, the myths that are abundant will continue to hurt America's chances of affordable and universal health-care.

Brits are deeply unhappy with everything. It is their only source of happiness. Just kidding But, yeah, our system isn't perfect - I dont think there is such a thing.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Much depends on the area you live in. London is notorious for poor NHS care. In my twenties I had nine abnormal smear tests that were not investigated. During that time I had an ovarian cyst which had me rolling around the floor in agony. I was dismissed by several doctors as being a "hysterical woman" I went privately and had a radical cone biopsy and a large life threatening cyst removed.
My lovely GP is forbidden from prescribing HRT without the permission of the practice gynaecologist who is anti HRT. Result many women have to go without.
I have a rare genetic problem known as Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. There are few experts available and the only really helpful person from the NHS has been my GP.
I recall my mother in law being carefully dismissed with paracetamol for her cancer - no decent specialist care. Then she was carted off to hospital where they loaded a syringe driver with heroin until she was dead. She wasn't in intractible pain and had no desire to die. But as she was eighty they weren't interested in her.
There are some great doctors working despite the system. But in general they are not happy with some official dictating precisely how they should treat their patient.Individual clinical judgement is irrelevant - doctors must follow the party line of a bunch of idiot quangos.
Example my husband came into contact with an active TB sufferer. He hadn't had the BCG vacine at school so I telephoned his surgery where they stated that they would not check him out as all of the vaccine was saved for immigrants.They told me I was racist for complaining - but TB knows no racial barriers as I pointed out.
They only agreed to act when I threatened that we would go privately then talk to the media.
My mother died from emphysema. A few days before her death her GP moaned to her about the cost of oxygen that she was using.
I guess we are really lucky to have this amazing system for us with it's desire for control - but I prefer to gamble at poker and we pay for medical insurance and my GP sighs with relief that if I require specialist treatment there is no hoops for him to jump through.
Our local hospitals are festooned with politically correct leaflets.
I had a routine cardio vascular risk assessment but the nurse did not mention good oral hygiene as a factor. When I asked why she looked blank- agreed that there was a link but it was not policy to mention it.
My dentist said that the NHS had no desire to bring the shortage of dental treatments and heightened cardio vascular problems into the public domain.
As for cheap prescriptions - many of those prescription charges cost far more then purchasing the item privately. Example anti depressant approx less then $1 a week and yet $10 for prescription.
If I'm being ridiculous then please explain why our private medical insurance companies and private medicine in general is flourishing in the Uk despite the recession.
Interestingly most of our politicians go privately or manage to wangle a freebie private room - they don't slum it on hospital wards
Louise

My happiness rating will improve when Brown and his crowd of totalarian morons get thrown out of office > Maybe then we can recapture the great in Britain.
Louise

With due respect Janet provided I am not libelling or attacking anyone I do not have to be careful when expressing my opinions of the NHS. I suspect that if Bevin were alive today he would not approve of the way it has developed into a monolith.I'm certainly not going to talk about todays health service as though it were something to be proud of. I have seen too many advoidable tragedies to view it that way.
Louise

Tax as well as NI goes towards the NHS therefore it is relevant - national insurance also contributes towards the state pension. I must emphasise that if you work and pay tax and NI NHS healthcare is not free. You pay for it out of your earnings. The choice of treatments, doctors etc though is not your choice but that chosen by the state.
I get so enraged over the heavy taxation that I try not to examine my husband's pay slip.
It seems strange that if our system is so wonderful that not everyone has rushed to adopt it. In many ways the NHS is immensely wasteful ie not bothering to keep hospitals clean - resulting in filthy conditions with life threatening infections quite a feasable possibility.
Back in the fifties when it was up and running we had a fine system. But those days are gone. Bevin would turn in his grave. My previous much respected GP retired as he could no longer bear the red tape and stupidity clogging up the system.
Talking of which I once had reason to call NHS Direct at midnight. The operator informed me that unless I told her my ethnic background I would not be allowed to speak to a doctor.
I don't like being bullied so I replied "homo sapiens"
This went down badly and my husband had to locate a private doctor for me. So much for healing the sick.
Louise

How sad that you seem so bitter and full of vitriol, Louise.

I have lived in many parts of the UK including 4 different areas of London in the past. My experience of the NHS has been extremely different to yours. The NHS isn't perfect but it's pretty good & I am so extremely glad we have it!

Scare stories such as yours are not really helpful to the ongoing discussion because they are not representative of the true picture that most people experience in the UK.

By the way I am fully awake thanks - I woke up at 6am this morning and unfortunately I cannot tolerate coffee due to bladder problems - but thanks for the offer!