Life Under Socialised Medicine

[Prophet 451]

I live in Britain, under the NHS. Now, I want to say this up front in case anyone gets the wrong impression: the NHS is not perfect and no-one should ever claim it is. Having got that established...

I suffer from extremely severe depression and anxiety disorders. As a result of that, I self-harm frequently (please, no lectures). I also have a completely unrelated condition where my stomach produces too much acid and slightly high blood pressure.

Every morning, I take two antidepressents and an acidity regulator. My prescription for these drugs is for two months supply of each and costs me £7 (roughly $15) to get filled. If I was unemployed (which I will be shortly), young or elderly, I would be exempt from that charge. But surely those are pre-existing conditions? Yeah, they are. Makes no difference. Under nationalised healthcare, the only time the words "pre-existing condition" come up is when your doctor is checking that any drugs he prescribes won't conflict with another condition you have. That prescription fee is all my out-of-pocket expenses (oh, and the occasional bottle of asprin or antacids). My doctors visits, medical tests, psychiatric tests and care, the weekly visit from the psychiatric nurse, all of that is covered by the NHS. If I need a hospital stay or an operation, that's covered too. If/when I lose my job, it makes no difference to my healthcare. The only difference from my perspective is that I need to tick another couple of boxes on the back of the prescription. No-one loses their healthcare when they lose their job here, even the (*shock, horror*) unemployed are covered.

As for the government deciding your healthcare? Well, there's two things here. Under the NHS, doesn't happen. My doctor and psychiatrist decide what care I need, they note it down on a computerised system and the NHS reimburses them, the actual exchange of money nevers involves you. The career civil servants who run the NHS don't decide your care, they just direct the resources where they're needed, quickly, quietly and with a minimum of fuss. Admin costs average 6.8% of the budget, including pensions and benefits. Secondly, how is that different from insurance suits deciding your healthcare? Given the choice, I'd rather go with the career civil servants. The insurance industry has a profit motive, they are actively looking to screw you out of your healthcare because the more people they can cut off from care, the more money they make. The civil servants don't care either way, they get paid exactly the same regardless of whether the NHS runs a surplus or a defecit. I could ring my doctor this morning and get an appointment this afternoon. Ah, but perhaps I'm special because I have "SUICIDE RISK" on my file? 'Fraid not. Most people will get an appointment on the same day or, at worst, the following day.

Now, I keep having the sam argument with conservatives who believe the NHS is a failure since it usually runs at a loss. IT'S SUPPOSED TO! Look, healthcare is not a product like a Big Mac, healthcare is a service. The Post Office doesn't make a profit either and it doesn't matter if they do. Their primary purpose is to move the mail about for the mutual benefit of all. The fire service puts out fires for the mutual benefit of all. And that's how the NHS works. They're not a profit driven business, they just treat illnesses for the mutual benefit of all. It is in an insurance industries best interests to deny you care. It is not in the governments best interests to do so because the quicker you get better, the quicker you get back to work and start paying taxes again.

The right keep screaming about waiting lists under the NHS. Yes, there are waiting lists for non-emergency operations. The actual time varies depending on the specific operation needed but they might well be there. Do you really not have waiting lists in the US? You can just walk into a doctor's office any morning, slap the cash on the counter and have the op there and then? Or do you, more likely, have to arrange a mutually convienient time for a consultation, arrange payment and arrange a mutually convienient time for the op? See, you already have waiting times, you just don't call them that. And how long do you have to wait if you don't have the cash to slap on the counter? Waiting lists might be annoying and sometimes painful but you will get the operation eventually and it won't cost you a penny (your employer is legally required to pay you while you recuperate). If you need a non-emergency operation in the US and you don't have the cash, how long do you have to wait? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending waiting times. They're a major flaw in the system and one we're trying to correct but what I am saying is that waiting a short time for care and getting it is better than never getting the care at all. I have been offered an operation to correct the problem with my stomach but I always turn it down. Not because of the waiting times but because stomach operations are fairly major surgery and I'm happy to keep taking the pills.

How about costs? I pay around 22% income tax and about another 8-9% National Insurance (our version of Social Security, there is no such thing as a payroll tax here). That's about average. How much do you pay in taxes? Now, add the cost of your health insurance (assuming you have it) to that figure and work it out again. The NHS running costs work out at just over $2000 per citizen, per year. How much can you get a year's health insurance for? The US spends, on average, $2.3 trillion a year on the combination of Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. Assuming the same $2000 per citizen, per year cost, the entire US population could be covered for around $600 billion a year, not counting start-up costs. Yes, some people here choose to take out private insurance anyway, that's their right and they do it for many different reasons. Some want the option of skipping the wait times, some want a more luxurious hospital or brandname drugs (the NHS tends toward functionally spartan and generic drugs to keep costs down), some may have more esoteric reasons but the option is there. Some employers offer it as a perk for their high-value employees. I smoke about a pack a day. Marlboros here cost about $12 a pack, 80% of which is tax. I don't mind paying that because the vast majority of that goes into the NHS. The government takes in about £10 billion annually from tobacco taxes and spends about £6.8 billion treating smoking-related illnesses. Again, I have no problem with paying that. I have a habit which is damaging to my health so I pay extra to cover the extra care which may be required.

A very brief word about abortion: The NHS will pay for abortions which your doctor considers medically necessary for physical or mental reasons. Abortions which are not medically necessary are not covered, they must be paid for privately, albeit at NHS rates. Whether you agree with that stance is up to you but that's the position.

A lot of people think the British hate our healthcare system because we bitch about it so much. This is a basic cultural misunderstanding. We bitch about everything, we're a dour people. Complaining is our national hobby, second only to football. This is the same country that had two books called Crap Towns where people were competing to get their town entered. The city where I live, Stoke-On-Trent in the Midlands, was once voted the most depressing place in the nation to live and we're proud of that. Whinging is the British passtime so our complaints about the NHS shouldn't be taken at face value. Rather, look at the fate of the rare politician who proposes abolishing the NHS: They catch hell at their surgeries (a monthly meeting for their constituents), get shouted down and usually booted out of office at the first opportunity.

And how about the charge that government will then tell you how to live your life? Yeah, it's bullshit. Utter bullshit. As mentioned above, I smoke about a pack a day. I don't drink much but I enjoy the odd pint of real ale. The government makes 80% of the price of my smokes in taxes and they skim a couple of pence off the price I pay on a pint but no-one's stopping me indulging those habits (although I can't smoke in pubs anymore). The health impact of fast food is generally dealt with indirectly (by taxing the corporate profits) but we still have plenty of branches of McDonalds, Burger King, etc. Sex is a health issue here, not a moral issue so any doctor will give you a dozen rubbers, free for the asking. The idea is that promiscuity is not a health danger in itself but unprotected promiscuity is. Therefore, provide a means of reducing the risk. It works, sort-of (the high teen pregnancy rate is more to do with them not using contraception in the first place).

Every other nation in the industrialised world manages some form of universal healthcare. It takes many different forms, with varying methods of delivery and paying for it. Since you're coming to this relatively late, there's nothing to stop the US setting up a committee to examine the existing systems and then mix-and-matching the best parts, absorbing Medicare and Medicaid along the way, until you come up with something special and uniquely American. The USA is the richest nation in the world. California alone is the fifth biggest economy on earth and yet, you are the only industrialised nation which doesn't guarentee at least basic healthcare for all of it's citizens. Guys, Italy manages this without it turning into a socialistic nightmare. Are you seriously telling me that US politicians are markedly worse than those of Italy? In most of the civilised world, only a very few unfortunates (mainly homeless people or drug abusers) die for lack of care. That's a tragedy, no questions there but how many people in the US die because they can't afford care? Triage by wallet.

The pressure for healthcare reform has never been higher. In poll after poll, about two-thirds of the USA wants healthcare reform but Congress may bargain away the public option (and let's not forget that the public option was the compromise position in the first place). Write, call, fax or email your CongressCritter. Take the Andy Dufresnes method (watch The Shawshank Redemption): Bug the living piss out of them until they'll do the right thing just to get rid of you. You guys need reform in the worst way and the wind is in your favour. So let's get it done.

Then we'll start on the legal bribery known as "campaign contributions". You grok?

[crazylikafox]

1. BEST healthcare post of the day!

[progressoid]

41. Best healthcare post of the month!

Me thinks. :)

[steelmania75]

90. Best healthcare post of the year.

:patriot:

[Blue_Tires]

2. thanks for this...

there has been way too much misinformation out there by people trying to kill off real reform here (and they have already halfway succeeded as the white flags of compromise are being waved)...

this and Canuckistan's post last week should be pinned to the top

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Thank you so much for sharing your experiences

My sister gets much of her health care in England and raves about NHS.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

4. Thanks!

I also live in the UK. I've experienced health care in the US for 25 years before moving to the UK.

I was dropped by my parent's insurer (family plan) because they thought I was too old to be under the family plan (despite me being a student and living at home with my parents). That won't happen here. My medicine was denied by the health insurance company as well as necessary surgery.

I don't understand why people don't like the idea of public option. I do wish people would experience the NHS before making an opinion.

Do you see the health care polls on Facebook? They are so skewed towards the anti-public option position and some of their comments say things like, "Look at England and Canada and you'll see why public option is a failure!" I said where did you get that from/

Also, someone responded to my post, "The US isn't the UK, it won't work here."

Are people really truly that dumb?

---

EDIT- I see you live in Stoke, I live in Rugeley. Hello, fellow Midlander!

[wolfgangmo]

36. re: Are people really truly that dumb?

Yes, In america they are.

Don't believe me? I have a 2 word response. Sarah Palin.

[paulsby]

5. thanks. great post nt

[subterranean]

6. I really wish we could do what you said...mix and match the best parts

of the systems from other countries, and avoid the parts that don't work so well. Coming late to the universal healthcare game should be an advantage for us, because other countries have already tried a variety of systems, and we can see what has worked well for them, and learn from their mistakes. But I guess that would make too much sense. Unfortunately, most Americans reflexively reject the idea that the USA has anything to learn from other countries. Instead, we're trying to build on our own dysfunctional system. The healthcare models used outside the US have mostly been ignored, except for Canada and Britain, which are always portrayed by the opponents of reform as socialist bureaucratic nightmares (whether it's actually true or not doesn't matter to them).

[pokercat999]

71. We already have a form of nationalized health care. It's

operated by the Veterans Administration and it costs about 30% less than the "private" health care and it's performance is much better than private health care. As a matter of fact it is so good that the American Legion is trying to get access for all it's members.

[ProudDad]

104. Exactly how Taiwan did it... (n/t)

[clear eye]

7. Thank you so much for taking the time to give us good info. n/t

[mr blur]

8. Excellent post! I'm English, too,

and I have MS. Permanently "disabled", and if I lived in the US I suspect that I'd be dead. My 9 daily prescription drugs are "free" to me because I'm on a disability benefit (anyway, I've paid for them when I could work and pay taxes). The other day I fell over in the street, couldn't get up. My wife phoned for an ambulance which arrived immediately. No one asked or cared how much money I have. My motorised wheelchair that the paramedics got me back into was originally provided to me at no charge to me. Likewise all the other equipment we have.

I've grown up thinking that healthcare is a right, not a privelege. Yeah, I'm a socialist and what else do we have a government for if not to protect, educate and nourish the people who vote for it?

[Prophet 451]

9. I'm not even a socialist

I just think that some things are too important to be left to the ruthlessness of the market.

[mr blur]

19. No need to be one to agree with such a policy

and value the fairness of it.

Once again, excellent O.P.

[LeftishBrit]

10. k&r!!!!!

As someone with Crohns (i.e. a 'pre-existing condition') since the age of 5, I don't like to think of having to rely on insurance companies.

[followthemoney]

11. Who would rather see an accountant when they are sick...

instead of a doctor. I don't want someone doing a cost risk analysis when I need a diagnosis and treatment.

[Jazzgirl]

67. What are you talking about?

Okay...maybe I misunderstood you??

[Flying Dream Blues]

12. Excellent post! K&R

[alfredo]

13. Can I add this to my e-mail list?

[Prophet 451]

54. Of course! n/t

[alfredo]

74. Thanks

[ceile]

14. K&R

[PatSeg]

15. K&R

Health care and share holders are like oil and water.

[bertman]

16. I grok. Great word that one rarely hears nowadays. Excellent educational post.

Thank you very much.

Recommend.

[Joanne98]

17. Excellent post.

[Posteritatis]

18. Now I need to watch that movie again. (nt)

[DesertFlower]

20. thank you so much for your post. nt

[mnhtnbb]

21. Great comment about waiting times. I waited 3 months for my hip replacement

and the reason was that the orthopaedic surgeon I chose is in such demand. I live in Chapel Hill--where I have could have chosen a UNC or Duke orthopaedic surgeon--or even gone to Raleigh. Instead, I went
to Charlotte (2 1/2 hour drive) to have this surgeon who learned how to do a true anterior approach (no muscles are cut and much faster healing) on a fellowship in Canada. The procedure was developed in California and many more ortho surgeons do it there, where it also requires a special operating table.
The procedure is spreading across the country, but as you come east you find fewer surgeons doing it.

Yeah. I waited 3 months to get the surgeon I wanted and had no complaints.

[mnhtnbb]

22. Triage by wallet. Now, that's a sound byte that I doubt will be repeated by our media.!

:rofl:

[proReality]

23. K&R n/t

[JimWis]

24. Outstanding post. Thanks so much. K&R

[defendandprotect]

25. Perhaps you know . . . does UK cover abortion---------???????

Canada does -- not sure about France - Italy --

Thanks, if you know!

[LeftishBrit]

39. Yes, it does (nt)

[defendandprotect]

44. Thank you . . . we keep pretending we're re-inventing the wheel here -- !!!

[Fedja]

42. Most EU countries do.

The last conservative government in Slovenia (and by that I mean somewhat to the left of the US Democrat party) tripped over the issue just 2-3 years ago.

The Minister of Labour, Family and Social Affairs, a member of the cabinet decided to test the waters. He suggested in an interview, and I mean mentioned the issue in passing, that maybe elective abortions would have to be paid for by the women that want them done, and that abortions would only be government-sponsored when needed to save the mother's health/life.

To avoid pitchforks and torches, the most conservative prime minister we've ever had publically suggested that his cabinet member should resign. Once he didn't, he got kicked out, and I'm pretty sure that the abortion issue isn't going to be touched for another 10 years or so.

[BonnieJW]

26. "Are you seriously telling me that US politicians are markedly worse than those of Italy?"

Yes.

[Kermitt Gribble]

27. Thanks for this post!

If only every person in the country could read this...

[valerief]

28. Our pols tell us to pray for things here. It's a nightmare. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

29. Excellent post! Thank you for sharing.

You do bring up an interesting point, however.

Here in the US we recently had a problem with corrupt civil servants (read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling">Monica Goodling).

I'm glad you brought this up; maybe we can look out for ways to avoid another Goodling in the government. I'd hate to think what someone like her would do to a single-payer system.

[Prophet 451]

57. Police them well

It's pretty simple really: Make sure the ones you hire are qualified in the first place (which means having a formalised process for hiring them) and then police them well. Here, there's also UNISON, the fairly powerful civil servant union, which would eject someone like Goodling pretty quickly.

[ColbertWatcher]

60. Perhaps you don't remember the details surrouning the Goodling affair?

She was hired by the GOP/Bush Administration to do the hiring/firing/promoting.

And, the GOP/Bush/Gonzales DoJ screwed over the unions.

But, I get what you're saying; I'm just wondering how we could prevent/avoid another Goodling.

[Prophet 451]

61. Oh, her!

Got confused, I remember Goodling now. One solution, the one we've come up with here, is to insulate civil servants from the political process entirely. That is, remove their hiring and firing from the purview of the administration and move it to some independent agency. Here, neutrality is one of the promises civil servants make when they take the job: That they will fulfill their duties, to the best of their ability and without regard for the politics of the person at the top.

[ColbertWatcher]

80. Sadly, that was what she was put in charge of.

I believe we're still haggling over it.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

30. I'm British as well.

I haven't lived in the UK for 35 years. My parents and all my other relatives in England get really good heath care and are very happy with it. They are disgusted at what we go through here.

I remember that we could go to the local doctors surgery (office) in the evenings and Saturdays without an appointment. Is it still like that? I also remember the doctor making house calls when we were ill.

[Prophet 451]

55. Nope, changed a little

The way they do it now, Saturdays and evenings are filled with appointments for those who rang earlier in the day i.e. you ring at 11am on a Saturday and get slotted in that afternoon. We still have home visits as well.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

113. That is so much better than here.

I need to take half a day off to see my doctor here. The wait in the waiting room is often an hour and then I have to wait again in the examining room for him. Office hours for all doctors here are 9 till 5 Monday through Friday. So you have to take time off from work to see a doctor.

The wait for an appointment is 6 to 8 weeks for my doctor. I cannot ever talk to him on the phone no matter what is going on with me. When I had a problem I had to leave a voice mail with his medical assistant and she got back to me 24 hours later. I know she never spoke with him because she was kept saying I had a different condition than the one I have. I have insurance by the way.

My dads doctor (in England) has gone to my parents house (unannounced) to check on him when his lab results were greatly abnormal. Most doctors here don't seem to really care and are extremely arrogant. A good doctor is hard to find here.

American's don't know any better and most think they have it really good.

[Prophet 451]

117. Grief, that's awful

Since they put the new appointment system in a couple of years back, I don't think I've ever had to spend more than ten or fifteen minutes in the waiting room and no time at all in an examination room, you only get called in when the doctor is ready for you.

I've had my doctor just phone me out of the blue when he hasn't seen me for a couple of weeks but that may be because of my mental condition.

[tilsammans]

31. Your post is a keeper! Thank you!

K&R!!!

:kick:

[donquijoterocket]

32. thanks

Than you for posting this. It's an excellent summary of the operation of that system. Too often all we get here is anecdotal evidence of the deficiencies, same with the Canadian system.I've noticed that the naysayers most often cite either the British or the Canadian systems.There's seldom a mention of the efficient, effective systems in operation in places like New Zealand, the Netherlands, any of the Scandinavian systems or perhaps the truly best national health care available the French where doctors still make house calls.
I'm most apprehensive that we'll end up with some bastardized plan ineffective and inefficient that will set the whole concept back another decade. Of course that's probably the goal of the naysayers, and certainly of the industry.

[TheMightyFavog]

33. When I was in London..

I was not aware that whinging was the number two pastime of the British People. I thought the number two slot was occupied by queuing.

[Prophet 451]

72. Ah, but we moan while we queue...

Two birds, one stone :)

[Echo In Light]

34. Rec

[bobbolink]

35. There needs to be a website where these stories can be collected, which we can point

people to!

This post of yours should be on every evening news program in the United States!

Thanks!

[TheKentuckian]

37. Hell, no one is even talking socialized medicine.

Just insurance and most are just wanting it as plausible option, not even to take over the whole scene.

I think all the socialized medicine talk is dog whistles.

[KT2000]

38. Great post!

one of the most level-headed essays I have seen on health care.
Really like the Andy Dufrenes reference because that is so right.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

40. "campaign contributions" ARE THE ROOT OF THE EVIL WE SEE

LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT

ONLY 17 PERCENT OF BAUCUS' CONTRIBUTIONS CAME FROM MONTANA

[wroberts189]

43. One of the best posts I have ever read. EXCELLENT knr nt

[pokercat999]

45. The last line is the most accurate and useful. If we could only

guarantee that when single payer is passed every Congress person and Senator gets $1,000,000 in "campaign" funds from the treasury, it would be done tomorrow. Lets face it, there may be 4 or 5 honest people (those not subject to bribery) in our whole political system, that's maybe 1% and no, it's not YOUR congressperson, your asshole in congress is a thief like 99% of the rest! So, we can't beat em, we can't vote them out, I say fuck it, let's play the game and bribe them. Only lets make it public and let's call it what it is and make them admit they are now, always have been and always will be despicable cockroaches that don't deserve another breath.

[Prophet 451]

58. I actually have an honest one

Recently, MPs expenses were made public here as a result of a frightful scandal. My local MP, a nice old Labourite called Mark Fisher, published his and the only questionable thing he's claimed for was a £5 box of face paints for Comic Relief day.

[pokercat999]

70. Sorry I was talking about American pols......I have no idea how

much money your MPs have to raise for elections, if any. However if it is a significant amount I can assure you that are accepting bribes from corporations or big donors in the form of campaign "contributions".

[Prophet 451]

73. Very, very little

Most contributions are made to the party and are of the "deceased benefactor" variety. There was actually a medium sized scandal in the mid-nineties when the Blair government started accepting "donations" from corporations. Mostly, the money comes from members who pay to be a part of the party and thereby, shape it's policies. Membership is only open to private citizens and fees are kept low enough that most people can afford them. My membership of the LibDem party costs me about £30 a year.

However, campaigning is much, much cheaper here. Because we vote for parties instead of individuals, each party campaigns as a whole. They're also allocated X minutes (the exact figures changes from year to year) of free TV time in the run-up to the election and are forbidden from buying more. How they divide up that time and when their ads go out is more-or-less up to them. What that leads to is a campaign style where the ruling party puts out an ad, laying out their case for reelection. Then the following day, the opposition parties will put out a rebuttal and a couple of days after that, the ruling party puts out their counter-rebuttal and so on. If you watch them back-to-back, as I did when i was doing PoliSci, it looks very like a formal debate.

[pokercat999]

78. The UK seems like such a sensible place.....until you

remember you still have royalty. It's a shame, but destined to end someday.

[Eryemil]

81. Like that makes any difference. The US is a republic and look what good it's done you

Canada is a constitutional monarchy and I can't remember the last time in recent history where it's been a problem.

[sushi]

95. Australia

I haven't posted here for a long time, but healthcare reform and what happened in Cambridge (the professor and the policeman) are very interesting!

BO's healthcare reform is more than 1000 pages long. Surely the politicians who have to approve it need time to go over it carefully. You don't just sign something you haven't studied and discussed.
Why does BO want it passed so quickly?

I live in Australia and here we have Medicare AND private health insurance. Medicare is a must (everybody contributes a very small percentage of their salary to it), and it's your choice to have private health insurance or depend on the government, but with Medicare alone you CAN wait a very long time for treatment (definitely longer than you care to wait!), especially if it's considered not urgent (but it's very urgent for you), and dental care can make you wait a VERY long time.
Having private health insurance you don't have to wait. When I needed surgery, my doctor referred me to a surgeon. I choose the date, had my surgery, paid the bill and got more than half of it back from both health insurance and Medicare.
The government also has all the 'preventive medicine' ads to encourage citizens to take better care of themselves. By not smoking, not overeating, exercising and eating healthy foods people can keep themselves healthy and save the government money.

We have a small population (22 million) so it's easier to cover everybody. I think it won't be easy to take care of over 300 million people.

[wolfgangmo]

126. re: I think it won't be easy to take care of over 300 million people.

We have economies of scale and a huge infrastructure already in place. It won't be hard at all. The health care system is already in place, what is missing is nooses for the middle men who are screwing up the system, denying care, and reaping unethical levels of profit on other suffering.

[Prophet 451]

83. I hope we keep them personally

They have bugger all actual power these days, the Royal Assent hasn't been refused for centuries and would cause a constitutional crisis if it ever was, they bring in a lot of tourist money and we'd be paying for the upkeep of the palaces anyway. Plus, according to successive PMs, the Queen's advice is often worth listening to since she's been around forever (by tradition, she advises on procedure, not policy).

[Diclotican]

89. Prophet 451

Prophet 451

Your Queen Elizabeth have been on the throne for a long time, and have maybe more knowledge about how things than everyone else in Great Britain this days.. She have known, and have understood more of how things work than most can do in a lifetime... And I guess she also is a rather smart woman - the old bat;) And I believe most modern monarchy in Europe have many of the same systems as UK have, with local traditions included off course. And as you point out, most monarchs can advices of procedure but not policy - even that I believe most monarchs do have some "in formal" possibility to put an idea in a prime ministers ear if possible..

And it is more like an tradition than anything to have a king or a queen... And UK is still one of the oldest monarchy in the wold, they are still fighting with Denmark over which country have the longs lines of Kings and Queen... Not many have monarchy today, but they who still have, have monarchy i believe to survive for a long time yet... People is used to the idea of a kings as their leader (or a queen) and even if they are expensive to have - they are still far less expensive than to have a whole new government laid down, and a whole new government in place plus we have to do the whole proses of electing a new president every 4 or 5 year. That is more expensive than say have a queen or a king for life... And of course their families.. But of course it is different from the 2000 number who is showing up as "royal blood" In the UK.. And the immediate family around our crown prince and princess and the ruling queen and king of Norway... And we have no other nobles by birth.. No Barons, no Earls and so on.. Just the royal family

Diclotican

[sushi]

142. The late king Farouk of Egypt

reportedly once said that one day there will be five kings left. The kings of Spades, Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs and the King of England.

[Diclotican]

155. sushi

sushi

And he might was right too.. I for one do not belive England would loose their King and Queen for a long time, even with all the idiocy the last 30 year or so... UK is regardness to a point proud of their royalty, and as long as they are not treating the whole fondation of the State. Then they wil be a king or a Queen in England for the next couple of houndred year... The whole consept of England wihtouth their Queen or their Kings is just ridicul, as it maybe is to have a King on a throne in the US..

Diclotican

[Diclotican]

88. pokercat999

pokercat999

The few european country who still have royally will have them for a long time.. Even thu the british royalty is little different from most other royal house... And I do not believe the kings and queens of Uk, or England will be going sometime soon.. It have been kings and queens in England since the AD 700s, and the idea of a republic, who they somewhat tried in the middle 1600s, failed miserably, and the King was once again Crowned in England after almost 17 year. And was by he way 17 year where everything "british" was more or less forbidden by th puritans who ruled Egnad for a long time...

Spain, Denmark Sweden Norway the Benelux country and so on, wil have theirkings and quieens for a long time, eco use most of the people like their kings and queers i fact. And would a republican President cost less than the current Royal House do it?. I Doubt it in fact even the british royal house, who are by far the most expensive, is less expensive than an president will cost - in housing, in protection and so on.. And every 4 or 5 year the cycle is all over it again.. The protection is provided by guards, who for the most part is part of the standing military forces as it is... And many of the palaces is government owned already - and again, the british Royal House own some palaces and castles them selfs too... Many claim that Queen Elizabeth is the richest woman in the world if he ever decided to sell her properties... Not bad for a woman in her 70s...

Will republic came to every kingdom?. I doubt it even that it is up to the people of that country for the most part. As long as most people "connect" to the idea of kingship and that their kings and queen is important for them, then the republic would have no chance in hell to came into power.. And as long as the royal families are not been to stupid, and destroying anything they have been worked for then we would wish our kings and our kings welcome every time they are out and wisting their peopole...

And for the most part, even hardliners in the republican corner of the boxing area have to admit, for the most part the current kings and queers is doing a good work for their different country

And by the way, most kings and queens have just so much power as their Parliament want them to have - so for the most part it is in the "informal way" Kings and Queen have lot of power, by law they are the head of STATE, but they can not interfere with the governance at Will.. In Sweden the Swedish King are not even allowed to be seated when the government is deciding what to do.. In others country like my own, the party who have the government" are going up to the Palace to have "state" when the king, and crown prince regularly attend to.. And it have been like this like the 1800s at least.. Before that it was more or less the king in Denmark who decided what to do in Norway anyway (and after 1814 Sweeden)...

In 1905 when we elected how type of government we would like, only 300 voted for an republic, the rest voted for a Monarchy.. And 100 year later, it is still much the same, even that the right to vote is somewhat widened after 1905..

Diclotican

[sushi]

96. Royalty

Australia is like Canada. We have a Governor General who represents the Queen, but the GG is only for show. It's a she now and she has no power. The Prime Minister runs the country.
I understand the politicians think we should consider cutting ties with Britain (become a republic) at the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign.
We had a referendum more than ten years ago to become a republic or remain a monarchy, and the monarchists won, not because the monarchy was popular but because people couldn't agree how to elect the head of state!

[ProudDad]

107. We'd be happy to ship you our electoral college...(n/t)

[wolfgangmo]

129. We'll pay for shipping and give you a handling fee.

Please take it. Please. Please. Pretty please.

[sushi]

138. electoral college

Isn't that also not right? Doesn't the electoral college mean a number of people choosing the leader on behalf of the people? Shouldn't it be the people themselves choosing the leader?
We also couldn't agree on whether the president should have the power (US style) or be only a figurehead and go on having the prime minister run the country (German style).
So, we're still a monarchy, in name only, and Australia is a member of the Commonwealth, like all the other ex British colonies Canada, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, many African countries.


Back to the topic of this thread.
There will always be people complaining. The best thing is to keep yourself healthy by not doing things that are considered not healthy!

I remember when the US and Australia were negotiating to become I-forget-what-it's-called.
When I order something from a US catalog I had to pay custom duty in the past. After we became
I-forget-what-it's called, I don't anymore. LOL What IS it called?
Anyway, during negotiations, US pharmaceutical companies were pushing for our government to take out certain expensive medicines from the list of medicines that are available cheaply to the sick!
How ugly was that!

[warren pease]

133. And the US doesn't?

What would you call the top 1 or 2 percent of elite rich bastards who actually run the show? At least the queen is a figurehead and everybody knows it.

Here, American royalty is known as the corporatocracy and there's nothing iconic about them.

They don't generate tourist revenue. They don't give two shits about their subjects. They don't even officially exist.

They just dictate policy through the culture of systemic legislative corruption here in the world's most overt and outrageous bribocracy.

I'll take the Windsors any day. And I'll gladly trade the Mellons, Vanderbilts, Trumps and the entire board of Goldman Sachs, along with a couple of prospects to be named later, for the Windsors and their considerable overhead.

It's pretty cool to watch the royal carriage clear the gates at Buckingham Palace. Not so much watching some Brioni-suited asshole exit the corporate limo and enter the corporate Gulfstream jet.

Take them all, please, and yesterday wouldn't be soon enough.


sf

[sushi]

139. It's true

It's true that the Windsors generate tourist revenue. When William marries Kate (or someone else!) it will be quite a show and attract many tourists, including Americans and Australians. My better half is British so I spend time in Britain too.

The British royal family is harmless. It's just that I think it's silly to be 'part of Britain' when it is obvious we're not! We're a melting pot. Actually, so is Britain now. Full of people from overseas, especially India and Pakistan, and 'Chicken Masala' is now the favorite national dish, not 'Fish 'n Chips!'
We're so far from Britain. The Queen hardly ever comes here, and she doesn't make any decisions for Australia. The thing is we have to change the constitution to become a republic and that, I hear, is a lot of work.

This is OT. Sorry!

[Prophet 451]

140. Britain's always been a melting pot

We're a mongrel nation, always were. Pretty much everything considered archetypally British is actually from somewhere else. Roast beef: Roman. Common law: Largely Roman. Pounds sterling: Roman (from libre punde). Tea: India/Ceylon. And so on and so forth. The only things which are actually British are punk rock and football hooliganism.

[moondust]

46. K/R

O8)

[NoSheep]

47. Thank you for this post. I hope someone who NEEDS to read it will.

[Vidar]

48. K&R.

[datasuspect]

49. the people involved in the creation of the NHS understood the principle of the common weal

namely, that the state partially exists to promote the good of all, not to promote the excesses and greed of an ownership class.

and all of this from a constitutional monarchy. go figure.

[Spider Jerusalem]

62. Thank the postwar Labour government for that.

Labour then being a socialist party, unlike New Labour.

There's a statue of Nye Bevan (Minister of Health who founded the NHS) on Queen Street in Cardiff:

[WillieW]

50. I grew up under Socialised Medicare and never had a problem.

[Chisox08]

51. Thank you for this excellent post

Now how do I convince my family members who has bought into the Riech wing talking points?

[varelse]

52. Thank you

:kick:

[MrBlueSky]

53. Nice post... thanks for it...

My conditions are similar to your health issues. In 2007, I was denied further mental health care right after I was hospitalized for depression. So, I quit my job and put my family on welfare. Why did I do that? So I could get Healthy Options (American Medicaid's HMO.) It's the universal healthcare for the poor.

The difference between our countries is that I would not have had to quit my job in order to get the care I need.

I am overall very happy with Healthy Options... but there are faults. There is no waiting list for care though (except for scheduling delays like you mentioned in your post.)

[Prophet 451]

59. Waiting lists for mental care here

Depends on your doctor's recommendation. Because I'm considered a suicide risk, I got support by phone from the same day and started seing the psych nurse in person within the week. Minor mental conditions (such as mild or situational depression) are usually dealt with by your GP or you'll be put on a waiting list for care (which averages around six weeks in this area) but if the doctor ticks the "PRIORITY" box, you skip that wait entirely. And, naturally, that's arranged around my job (until I get laid off in about a week).

[grantcart]

56. Ok this is very well written, thank you

And you seem to have a very mature attitude about your depression.


And you don't want any lectures.


But is it really a good idea, in your condition, to live in THE MOST DEPRESSING PLACE IN THE NATION!!!.


Just kidding


Thanks again.

[JuniperLea]

63. Thank you for this!

This is exactly as I've been hearing it from friends in Great Britain, and in Canada.

I pay 31.85% in income tax, including the Social Security I will probably never see. When I get a bonus, it is taxed at 39.75%... pathetic. Plus I pay a nearly 10% sales tax in California... which I consider a taxation on already taxed monies.

I pay as much as you in taxes, and get far less. It's the American way... ugh.

[DaveinJapan]

64. k&r, bigtime! nt

[Dark]

65. "Are you seriously telling me that US politicians are markedly worse than those of Italy? "

Yes. Dear God yes.

[barbtries]

66. very well done

i want it too.

[TexasObserver]

68. Recommend

[GodlyDemocrat]

69. Waiting times go away under any universal system if you pay your doctors well

You just need a mechanism for that.

[Ladyhawk]

75. Meanwhile, I think I'm dying of depression and I have no real options. nt

[Prophet 451]

77. I'm genuinely sorry for that

I know how that feels and I know that nothing I can say right now is going to make a difference. Can I suggest though, that you take a look at metanoia.org. The site is run by a friend of mine, it's trustworthy and you may be able to find some way of getting help through there.

[JDPriestly]

76. Excellent.

Figure how much you pay in taxes and add your health insurance costs to that. You are now paying for that total more than you are likely to pay for taxes and a single payer health insurance coverage.

I am writing in support of the OP. My husband and I went to live in Europe (my husband was an exchange teacher). We stayed there quite a number of years and lived in four countries. In every country we had wonderful public insurance health care. Different countries apparently actually funded and organized it differently. But we never noticed any difference. All of it was wonderful. We faced some very difficult health crises. In particular I recall that my three-year-old was suffering from allergies that had troubled her from her birth. We lived on the continent and my doctor was able to special order homeopathic drops from England to immunize my daughter against the allergic substances. Her allergies improved to the point that she did not have to wear bandages around her hands to keep her from scratching. (Imagine skin allergies in a small child.)

The only reasons we had to wait for anything were 1) the homeopathic drops were not standard medical procedure because they had not been fully tested yet; 2) our daughter could not be tested for allergic sensitivity (this was some years ago) because she was considered too young. Apparently the doctors were uncertain as to whether it might be risky to subject her to the tests until she was 3. I suspect that had to do with the fact that her body weight was very low.

I could tell story after story. Never did I have to wait for anything without a good reason for it.

Public health care is just wonderful. I wish we had it.

[the blues]

79. Frickin' fantastic post.

:yourock:

[Canuckistanian]

82. Nice view from over the pond

Thanks for the great post!

[Naturyl]

84. Awesome post

But I'm afraid you don't realize the extent of ignorance, selfishness, and brainwashing over here.

Not 30 seconds ago, an anti-reform commercial was on TV - claiming $500 billion in "new taxes" and "devastating" restrictions on care for the elderly.

Your post was amazing, but I think you'd have to be an American to really get your head around how screwed-up our political climate is.

[tilsammans]

87. Indeed, the loudmouths here are very loud and VERY well funded . . .

My cousin was going on about how she "heard on the radio about how old folks are going to be required to get counseling about euthanasia."

:wtf: :rant:

[hay rick]

85. K & R & bookmarked.

Excellent post.

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. kick and recommended for the truth !!!!

[hunter]

91. My "two month supply" of meds costs about $900.

It's no fun being me in the USA.

My wife and I should have run off to some civilized nation while we were still young. Here in the U.S.A. our monthly medical expenses are greater than our mortgage payment.

Through no fault of our own (accident and serious illness) the U.S. health care industry sunk their fangs into us and sucked away any wealth we might have accumulated.

[704wipes]

92. So say you just fucking QUIT your job because it is bullshit...

and you take 2-3 months to find a better job with a less ass-holish employer, NHS still got your back so you can stay healthy while you look?

I think I know the answer. Your health system probably supports your freedom to tell asshole employers to fuck off and they are better employers because good people will leave them since they are not married to the health insurance benefits. Am I right?

[Prophet 451]

94. Absolutely correct

I quit one job to go to university, quit another because my boss was an asshole of the "keep 'em busy with pointless bullshit" variety. NHS still covered me. The default position is that they cover every citizen, regardless of circumstances. If you're a junkie, you still get NHS cover including help to straighten out. I've never had rpivate insurance except for a brief period when I was covered by my fathers. Went through school, college and uni, quit two jobs, was laid off others and the only difference it ever made was ticking the box on the back of the prescription to say I'm exempt from prescription fees.

Because of both the NHS and the hard work of unions down the years, employees have a lot of protections here. Our minimum wage averages about $12 an hour, redunancy notice of at least one pay period (i.e. if you get paid monthly, you get at least a month's notice) and you can only be summarily fired for gross negligence or criminal misconduct. If they want to fire you for any other reason, they have to go through arbitration.

[pleah]

93. K&R

[puebloknot]

97. My, how sane! Thanks. Unfortunately, America's money ...

... can't buy smarts. We're in an epic battle to see if the anchor of "dumb" is going to sink our ship of state. Bizarro World!

Great article.

[wolfgangmo]

130. It occurs to me that perhaps the US deserves to fail

I know that is a harsh judgement, but we are a very hubristic nation and maybe, just maybe, we need to be put in our place. It might waken a few people up, although I have my doubts about that.

If the US does crash and burn then I suspect that Canada will be building a REALLY big fence to keep the undesirables out.

[puebloknot]

152. If the U.S. fails, we'll .... blame Canada!

I agree that it may take a fall before we wake up.

We need to divest ourselves of insurance company corruption and religious fanaticism in government. For starters!

[Juche]

98. It is a given fact that socialized medicine is better than what we have

The people who use medicare have higher satisfaction rates than those on private insurance, and medicare costs less. No country that has universal healthcare or socialized medicine wants the US system, but the majority of the public in the US want a system like the ones in France, Canada or the UK.

There is no real question that socialized medicine is superior to what we have. It is cheaper and has higher satisfaction rates both domestically and internationally. It isn't perfect or anything, but it is a guaranteed step up. The only people who still persist in believing it is inferior are either cynical people who exaggerate the facts because they stand to lose money or idealogical purity (gubbamint = bad) under socialized medicine, or the reams of useful idiots who believe every 'canadian wait list death' story they hear on talk radio.

[Beartracks]

99. Nicely put, Prophet 451!

"Healthcare is not a product like a Big Mac, healthcare is a service. The Post Office doesn't make a profit either and it doesn't matter if they do. Their primary purpose is to move the mail about for the mutual benefit of all. The fire service puts out fires for the mutual benefit of all. And that's how the NHS works. They're not a profit driven business, they just treat illnesses for the mutual benefit of all. It is in an insurance industry's best interests to deny you care. It is not in the government's best interests to do so because the quicker you get better, the quicker you get back to work and start paying taxes again."


Universal health care: For the mutual benefit of all. :thumbsup:

[Lorien]

100. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=276&topic_id=9550&mesg_id=9550

[vanlassie]

101. Daughter, age 25, married and moved to London

18 months ago. She has an ulcer. She has had the BEST, most prompt care. She recently had had a trouble free colonoscopy and endoscopy,and gets meds for 7 pounds. She is also getting some behavioral health counseling related to the stress of adjusting to a new country. She tells Brits all the time to shut up and stop complaining about the NHS- they're damn lucky to have it!

But after reading the OP, I just realized....Brits complain about the NHS, Americans complain about bad customer service. I really think Americans complain more. But either way, I would far rather get NHS service than what currently passes for "service" in an American medical offices with surly front office girls and hours waiting in crowded waiting rooms.

England needs to get with the customer service bandwagon in all other respects, though, I must say. I went to a Starbucks in Wanstead, UK, and was served lukewarm coffee. When I took it back to the counter, the girl looked at me like I was crazy to expect her to make it again! They have not heard that "the customer is always right" over there. But, I digress.

[Fedja]

110. haha

Customer service? You need to visit Southeastern EU states, you'll blow a gasket. :D

[sushi]

143. An American friend

and I ordered apple pie with ice cream in a hotel coffee shop in Sinapore. My friend din't think the pie was warm enough so she complained loudly, made the waitress take it back, and told me, again loudly, that it should be perfect or you SEND IT BACK! LOL

[grahamhgreen]

102. Left - Nationalized HC - Single payer HC - Public option - Private insurers - Right

Obama should have started with National health - then he may have wound up with public option.

[InfiniteThoughts]

103. the best sentence that i ever read in DU ...

A lot of people think the British hate our healthcare system because we bitch about it so much. This is a basic cultural misunderstanding. We bitch about everything, we're a dour people. Complaining is our national hobby, second only to football.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[alcibiades_mystery]

105. awesome

[musical_soul]

106. Thank you for sharing this.

I've had mixed feelings about the subject, but I'm starting to come around to believing we should have it. Of course, that's not actually what Obama is suggesting we do IMO. There are differences. Anyway, your post is making me think more and more that I should support Obama's plan. Thanks.

I won't give any lectures. I just really hope that your health gets better.

[slipslidingaway]

108. Thanks for this wonderful post :) n/t

[leftstreet]

109. Happy to K&R

:thumbsup:

Thanks for posting.

[AllyCat]

111. "Triage by wallet" That is almost a bumper sticker. I plan to use that line

repeatedly if you don't mind. Great post. Hope you are feeling well and happy.

[Prophet 451]

112. No problem at all

I never mind people using my lines or even reproducing my stuff wholesale, I just care that the ideas get out there.

[nolabels]

114. Some should start a thread "Life under Billionaire welfare queens and subsidized rich people"

It would only need a map of the USA for everyone to see where it all takes place :shrug:

[NMDemDist2]

115. i wonder how many recs a thread can get before the server stops counting

but I just got you to 200

:kick:

[Prophet 451]

116. Cheers dude! n/t

[yodoobo]

118. about the waiting lists - lets clear that up too

I know the right keeps going on saying that they are months and months. That seems like scare tactics.

On one forum I read that you sometimes have to wait 6 to 9 months for routine operations. I told'm that was bullcrap. There is no way any medical system would have such waits.

But, I would like to get a definitive answer -how long are the waiting lists? A few weeks I presume?

Thats really not much different than here.

thanks for posting this. I wish all Americans could read your summary.

[Prophet 451]

119. Difficult to say

The problem is that firstly, waiting times vary wildly according to the type of care you need and secondly, each area compiles their waiting list seperately. However, based on the COO's report of 2004 (most recent I could find), the average wait time across the board is 4 to 8 weeks.

Waits of 6 to 9 months for routine operations do happen occasionally but they're rare, considered a scandal that we're trying to fix and usually mean someone has fallen through the cracks. It's unfortunate but it does happen on occasion. That said, compare that to how long you'd be waiting in the USA if you didn't have health insurance (and presuming your insurance company didn't find a way to screw you out of cover).

Finally, anecdotal evidence: My grandmother was diagnosed with cancer (which eventually proved fatal) seven years ago and was in hospital that evening. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer six years ago, had teh remaining tests the following day and was in hospital three days later. The waiting time for the operation to remove my ingrown toenails was three days and if I ever took the option of having surgery on my stomach, my GP estimates I'd be waiting about a month.

[unapatriciated]

123. I can answer that.....

In May of 1990 my son started having symptoms of fatigue, rashes and slight muscle weakness. I asked for a a simple blood test for lupus (having an aunt and sister who had lupus) I was denied. My hmo doctor said I was over-reacting and treated him for an allegoric reaction. I went to four different doctors over the next seven months and had to finally threaten a mal-practice suit to get a simple blood test, by then the disease had progressed to a critical stage. The blood test was done in late December it came back positive for Lupus. He wasn't refereed to Children's Los Angeles until January of 1991, where more definitive test were preformed he was correctly diagnosed with Dermatomyositis and hospitalized for three months. My son's wait time with Insurance was long and almost cost him his life. Yes it was the doctors who denied at first, but only because they are forced into a partnership with the Insurance Industry who control the money. The next 15 years was a nightmare of fighting with my insurance company to approve the course of treatment recommended by my son's doctors.

[yodoobo]

135. 4 to 8 weeks isn't so bad.

With insurance I know of folks that have waited as long a month for non-critical operations, it seems to be almost comparable.

Your point of folks with no insurance is well taken because its true.

Its important to reassure people in this country who already have insurance that service will not decline. Why? because they are the gatekeepers on any healthcare reform.

Its a societal reality, that anyone who currently does not have insurance, will have absolutely no say in what gets passed.

The folks in power are already well insured and they need to be convinced that they won't lose with a national plan.

If the folks in power believe that they'll be waiting 6 months for routine surgery, then we'll never get anywhere.

[griloco]

120. there is no life under socialism

i mean, look at it, how many people live in britain?
one maybe two million?
and look how many people live in alaska after sarah palin
socializedly taxed big oil and shared the wealth with the serfs.
it's so bad there, she herself had to leave.

[Prophet 451]

131. You're kidding, right?

Britain's population is around sixty million and socialising healthcare doesn't mean you suddenly wake up in Moscow 1953.

[griloco]

147. if britain is so good

how come governess sarah isn't moving there?
and just because palin rhymes with stalin
is no reason to wake up in moscow in 1953.

[Prophet 451]

150. She's not a Gov anymore

Are you a troll, an imbecile or a very subtle satirist?

[griloco]

151. i don't know.

is a satirist like a socialist
or one of them greeky goaty guys?

[cyclezealot]

121. Claiming somthing is perfect: But, the French system comes darn close

We have a visa allowing us to enroll into the French system. We have many American friends who know very well the French system.. Most say , they'll have a hard time leaving France and leaving this system behind. Talk to our French friends.. They know what they have and will fight to the death to protect it.. Even the right knows it's political poison to screw with health care. Last who tried was Prime Minister Juppe he was even defeated in his blue blood Bordeaux district and now is a nobody.

[Vinca]

122. "We bitch about everything" - ROFL

That explains it. Grandpa was born in Liverpool so I've got bitching in my DNA.

[Christa]

124. K & Highly rec'd nt

[kimjamey69]

125. Thanks GREAT POST!

So glad to have someone that tells the truth!

[area51]

127. Kick.

I'm so glad when people dispell the rightwing propaganda machine in the U.S. concerning healthcare in other countries. Thanks, Prophet 451.

[warren pease]

128. Wonderful post; thank you... Could you comment...

... on the residual effects after Maggie and Major intentionally underfunded the NHS for 17 straight years in a Tory effort to undermine the system and get the British to support US-style privatization?

What actually happened to the NHS -- and the health care providers who work under that system -- during that period of temporary national madness?

Has it fully recovered yet (and it sounds like it's well on the way, given that wait times are minimal again)?

Did Blair and the neocons actually restore some or all the necessary funding required to run a first-class national health care system, or is the NHS still suffering from "death by budget axe?"

What's Brown's position on proper NHS funding?

How do you think the average British NHS "customer" would react if the NHS were phased out and a US-style "triage by bank balance" system were to take its place?

Any other points about budgets and adequate funding you'd consider important as we endure this so-called national debate on for-profit medical insurance vs. health care -- with the outcome obviously predetermined by campaign "contributions," demonstrating that the bribocracy remains firmly in place and congress' corporate sugar daddies remain in control of our political lives.


Thanks again,

sf

[Prophet 451]

132. Sure

"on the residual effects after Maggie and Major intentionally underfunded the NHS for 17 straight years in a Tory effort to undermine the system and get the British to support US-style privatization?

The campaigns of Major and Thatcher had a couple of effects. They completely failed to make the people support US-style healthcare but one thing that did happen was that we ended up with a generational shortage of doctors and nurses. Essentially, the Tory compaign had three elements: Deliberately underfund the system, discontinue incentives to train and choke the system with layers of beurocracy. The first, you know about. The second involved removing training incentives and retiring placement schemes. The result is that we have a sort-of "lost generation" of medical staff which we've had to make up by creative use of the Highly Qualified Immigration Scheme (a system where would-be immigrants with skills we are short of get preferential treatment). The beurocracy is, gradually, being removed but it's a slow process due to institutional inertia.

"What actually happened to the NHS -- and the health care providers who work under that system -- during that period of temporary national madness? "

Well, the NHS carried on, as it always has. Amid public uproar, admittedly. A few doctors took a look at what they needed to earn to provide for themselves and their families and jumped to private practice but the majority stayed in public practice and suffered along with everyone else. Little effort was made to replace doctors who died or retired, with the result that you saw locums constantly and a lot of people had little idea who their listed doctor actually was. That's not an inherent fault of nationalised medicine, it was the direct result of Thatcher and Major's attempt to cripple the system.

It hasn't fully recovered yet but it's getting there. Replacing the training incentives got would-be medics back in training again; improving the pay and benefits got a lot of nurses to come back and the HQIS and Commonwealth agreements brought in a lot of medics from the Commonwealth nations, mainly India and the Carribean. The main problem is what's referred to as "institutional inertia". That is, the additional layers of beurocracy became part of the system and the system grew around them in teh same way as coral reef will grow to encompass anything placed upon it. The result is that removing those middle management is a slow and thankless job. So, it's a work in progress.

"Did Blair and the neocons actually restore some or all the necessary funding required to run a first-class national health care system, or is the NHS still suffering from "death by budget axe?" "

Some. Let me state, for the record, that I can't stand Blair and never could. That said, he inherited a situation where the Tory government had cut taxes to the bone and underfunded public services. Although Labour took a hard swing to the right under Blair, restoring the NHS was a priority but he suffered in that he had to deal with a whole generation (my generation) who had grown up under the Thatcher tax regime and who wanted the services without being willing to pay the taxes for them. So, while some of the funding was restored, he didn't dare raise tax rates to the necessary level to pay for all of it.

Brown... Alas, Mr Brown. It's worth noting, BTW, that even the Conservative party here says they want to fully fund the NHS. Brown is suffering from what my old PoliSci teacher called "a carnival of catastrophes", being so buffeted by one crisis after another that there is little time left to address existing priorities. Since Brown came to power, he's had to deal with the financial implosion, a very nasty (and still ongoing) expenses scandal, numerous backbench revolts, the after effects of both wars and an extremely hostile public (inherited from Blair). The result is that while he's continued the funding increases that started under Blair, he's had no time to properly address the institutional problems which have been around for twenty-odd years now and his time is running out.

If the NHS was abolished and a US-style triage by wallet system was put in place here, I honestly think there'd be open revolt. It wasn't that long ago when Thatcher's attempt to impose a poll tax caused nation-wide rioting and forced her government to back down (although Thatcher, as ever, was immune to self-examination).

I think your main problem is going to be the American (well, American right and media) ingrained belief that voodoo economics can and will work. What that leads to is an outright refusal to tax the rich at anything above bare bones rates. What you need to avoid like the plague is what seems to be happening: Legislation which locks in the power of insurance companies.

[vinylsolution]

136. Many thanks for spelling this stuff out....

.... so eloquently, Prophet. As a Brit living in America, I've been trying to educate folks about this basic human right for many years, but they always recite back to me the corporate media's standard distortions and fearmongering.

But maybe, just maybe, this time around.... we've gotta keep the pressure on.

[warren pease]

146. Keeping the pressure on...

Unfortunately, I can't afford to buy a brace of senators and a bakers dozen members of the house. I still think it's worth progressives pooling our money and simply participating in the obvious bribocracy.

Now that voting is handled by machines made by private, GOPpiggie-saturated corporations using proprietary source code, it's the only thing left.

Hell, why pretend there's a level playing field when the evidence against it is overwhelming? As long as money talks and bullshit walks in America, might as well be on the side of the talkers.

Cynical? Can't hold a candle to Max Baucus.


sf

[dcsmart]

134. Happy Days....K & R

[Junkdrawer]

137. Here are the Two Biggest Reasons the US doesn't have Socialized Medicine:

1.) The Atlantic Ocean.

2.) The Pacific Ocean.

[donco6]

141. If anything needs to go viral, it's THIS.

Compared to all the crap that winds up in my mailbox, . . . well, there IS no comparison. Thanks for the great, interesting, informative post.

[mwooldri]

144. Brilliant post!

Yep, I'm English, and I have experienced both systems: US and UK.

To those who think that healthcare for everyone would be too expensive in the US I have this simple information for you.

Medicare covers about 45 million people, costs US government $400 billion.
the UK's NHS covers 60 million people, costs the UK government (and devolved governments) $190 billion.

I'm paying about 14% of my gross income for healthcare, but that's a bit unbalanced because my wife works and pays 0% for her healthcare. Then we have Medicare taxes to pay, federal income tax, state income tax, social security tax... With both our incomes combined, we're lucky because I happen to have a very good employer who does look after its employees - e.g. I've been offered 6 weeks paid leave when my son is born sometime in August. My wife has to take disability at her work to be covered. (yes we have to take FMLA time concurrently with this, but the difference is that my leave is not disability related... it's just "covered").

I will add this: no matter what party is in power in Westminster, the opposition will *always* gripe about waiting lists and running over budget. It's what opposition does. Labour did it with Thatcher and Major, and the Tories did it with Blair and now Brown. Liberal Democrats will also join in as well and certainly state the NHS is underfunded (IMO I believe it *is* underfunded). Each party will always have their way to "reform" the NHS and will tinker with it and introduce new schemes and the such. Thatcher tried it with the Internal Market, when Labour came to power they vowed to scrap it, but instead ended up liking some parts of it and ended up "reforming" it instead.

You're right, whinging is in the British nature. If it moves, people will complain about it. The roads, the railways, the buses, the healthcare, the government, the local parish council, the local church, the BBC, ITV, the newspapers, water, electric, yep... it will be whinged about.

People over here say it will deny consumer choice. To some extent, yes - but if you're savvy you can get to see the doctor you want. You have a right to be on the list of a doctor that covers your area, but if any doctor wants to take you on, then you can ask that doctor to take you on and if they are willing - you're on as their general practitioner (primary care physician in US-speak). If you need to be referred to a specialist, sure the doc's going to refer you to their contracted or local specialist but if you demand to see a particular individual you may request it. Also to keep costs down, the NHS picks certain hospitals to specialise in certain conditions... my son has a condition that would, if he was in the UK, require trips to Great Ormond St Hospital in London, or Manchester Children's Hospital. Those are the only two hospitals in the UK equipped to deal with the surgical side of his condition - though local urologists and his GP would take care of his need if he was in the UK system (he is not at this time though). The advantage of specialisation this way (apart from costs) is that you get arguably the best treatment for that condition in that location.

Oh yes, you're right about Stoke. Definitely the butt of a lot of jokes. Remember that show 'Don't forget your toothbrush' ??? I bet you the booby prize would be a holiday for two to Stoke.

Mark.

[mwooldri]

145. Oh yes, let me add more ...

... my sister is a qualified nurse working in the NHS, working in Intensive Care.

She has had overtures from me to come work over here (cos I miss her) - I said we could get her in legally, get her a nice job that paid more than her NHS job (much more). She refused and here's one of the reasons she cited: "I wouldn't want to work in a hospital where they turn away people because they can't afford to pay to be treated."

A good friend from mine from school went through medical school there in the UK. He's probably qualified as a surgeon last I heard from him... and he definitely did not go into medicine for money - he did it for the love of it. Yes, he's compensated well enough, probably arguably he could be compensated more - but it's his passion that drives him, not the paycheck.

The whole attitude to health care in the UK is way different to the USA. Yes, the NHS is far from perfect, yes they have issues with waiting lists for certain procedures. However the whole social support network I feel is far superior in the UK because you *can* have our senior citizens afford to live in a home, with a basic pension, and not have to move out or sell their home or rent it out just to pay for a couple of medicines they need each month - like what happened with my wife's grandmother (she couldn't afford her meds, she moved in with her daughter, and rented out her home).

Mark.

[Prophet 451]

149. Don't even get me started on senior care

I could write another very long rant about how diabolical senior care is.

[Uzybone]

148. Great post...bookmarked.

[spin]

153. Kick ... thanks.

[krister]

154. I'm very grateful that you took the time to right this........

....even though it just makes me even more angry at how corrupt and dishonest our politicians are and how STUPID so many of the voters choose to be.