An Iraqi junior doctor and a brilliant neurologist working for the NHS are among the suspects being quizzed over the series of bomb attacks across Britain, it emerged today.
For those who don’t know, “NHS” refers not to Newington High School, my alma mater, but to the National Health Service, Britain’s much-maligned, Michael Moore-endorsed public health-care system. Which, we now learn, breeds terrorists. So, y’see? HILLARYCARE = TERRORISM. Now there’s a bumper sticker for you. ;)
heh, the sad thing is you probably need to put a big sarcasm tag on this post, i bet there are people who are going to accuse you of supporting being a member of the VRWC now :)
P.S. Are you questioning my VRWC street cred? Don’t you remember I’m a Lieberman supporter? That makes me not just a member of the VRWC, but also a member of the vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil moneyed neocon JEEEWWWWWS! :)
Saw Sicko with my sister and her boyfriend. I learned that when Medicare doesn’t work that’s an indictment of privatized health care, that nothing says freedom like the Canadian police coming when you try to get medical care, that you can dismiss criticisms of socialism’s dramatic failures by screaming “Communism!” in a mocking tone, that the Soviet Union’s health care system doesn’t count, that government should do our laundry, that it’s capitalism’s fault that devestating illnesses are devestating, that heavy heavy taxation is free, that we should be jealous of the prisoners at Guantanamo for their wonderful health care and quality of life, and that Cuba is a land of plenty and freedom under Castro’s benevolent leadership.
Knowing how the audience would react, I only said at the end, “I still say we keep laundry privatized.” Okay, I may have yelled at the screen that Castro and Che Guevara are and were murderous evil bastards…
That said, I think it’s sad that most people don’t understand the difference between socialized medicine (govt. runs the health system) and universal coverage (everybody has insurance coverage). Proposals by Dems are generally for universal coverage, not socialized care. And I think we can all agree that universal coverage is a goal worth striving toward.
A pretty smart guy once said, “Some people look at the world and ask Why? I ask, Why Not?”.
If you think getting billed 600 dollars for a 10 cent X-ray is right, that’s cool. I don’t think Hospitals should be able to bill excessively just because MOST people have insurance to pick up the tab. There is simply more efficient and more intelligent ways to handle healthcare especially in a country as enterprising as the United States.
Brit: “Well, we all pay a bit to the NHS in our taxes. That way, if we get ill then we can have free health care.”
Bizarre American: “COMMUNIST!”
It’s sad that these promising doctors are suspects though, I really hope that some mistake has been made, as for some reason it just shocks me that anyone would deliberately go against their hippocratic oath.
I like the NHS. My sister’s a nurse.
That weird American again: “PINKO COMMIE SUBVERSIVE!”
Glad you learned all those things. Were you under the impression that the American system was perfect, with 40+ million people doing just peachy without basic health care?
One reviewer stated this: “Having ‘enjoyed’ first-hand experience of two of these three health systems — the British and the Canadian — I can attest that they’re not quite as idyllic as Mr. Moore paints them. Except in comparison with the U.S. system, of course, and that’s the point.”
Ever been without health insurance? Ever had to deal with a catastrophic illness even with insurance? Can you imagine what it would be like without it?
I guess mostly rich suburbanites can make fun of universal health care as “socialist”, but those in the uninsured ranks probably think it’s deadly serious.
Perhaps the British or Canadian systems aren’t right for America; but maybe they are, given that it seems to work. Or maybe we should see how the Massachusetts experiment works out. But the status quo, which the film sets out to criticize, isn’t working for enough people that something needs to change.
Briandot - I happen to have experienced not only the British NHS and the US Healthcare system - I have also experienced what the Canadian system is like …
The UK system back 40 years ago was remarkably effective … GPs (General Practitioners - sort of the proto-PCPs) made house-calls, people needing operations went into hospital and got them … unfortunately, nowadays, as an example, there was a recent case of a hospital penalised financially by the NHS for not delaying the care it gave its patient community sufficiently - apparently they were making the other hospitals around (and the Government Department) look bad …
The Canadian system 30 years ago also was reasonably good - very much similar to the UK system - but it, too, has gone the way of the UK system, rationing healthcare more and more … also with delays for procedures …
The US system has its flaws - but - as far as I know, if you come down with an illness in the US and you don’t have health insurance, you can go to the local county hospital and they will treat you … you have to be willing to wait in line at the County Hospital emergency room to be seen, but you will eventually be seen …
And that is basically what the UK and Canadian systems have, too … rationing - where the prosperous can circumvent the system to get care-on-demand and the rest of the folk get to wait …
What I *know* I don’t want to see here is the importation of the worst of the socialised systems to be run by bureaucrats here !
Alasdair, As I see it there is one significant problem with your argument. Namely, who pays for the uninsured. Lets go with uninsured and can’t possibly pay. In our system that person is usually required to declare bankruptcy (something that is significantly harder to do now thanks to your lot–even in cases where it really is necessary.) So then the Hospital is stuck with the bill. Nobody pays the hospital back in our system. They must find some way to swallow the cost–hence 8 zillion dollars for a X-ray so that the three that get paid for cover the 60 or so that didn’t. That or, you know just close the emergency room so that they don’t have a legal requirement to see uninsured patients. That step is becoming very common and is a very serious public health issue.
Also, the way that scenario is set up it is not really fair to anyone. We can do much better.
Alasdair, if you think you can just go to the county hospital and get treated without insurance, I suspect you’ve never been in that predicament. Ever heard the phrase “treat ‘em & street ‘em”? It happens a lot.
Here’s a great example, straight from my family. A family member, A, went to the emergency room. A’s symptoms were the EXACT same as the symptoms B had previously had. B had been diagnosed with gallstones and had the gallbladder removed. (B had health insurance.) The doctors at the emergency room ran some blood tests on A, told him everything was fine, that he did not have gallstones, and sent him on his way with no treatment. B consulted his mother’s friend who was a gastrointestinal specialist; said specialist said that an ultrasound is needed to detect gallstones. Google “detecting gallstones,” and you will find numerous authorities to support this. His advice for A was to eat a lower fat diet and to particularly be careful about eating too close to bedtime. A’s symptoms have continued, but following the specialist’s advice has lessened the attacks and made them more manageable. The family is 99% certain A has gallstones, but he has not been diagnosed by a professional.
In this case, gallstones are not a life-threatening condition, so A can continue to live a normal life with some modifications in diet. But the question remains - why wasn’t A given an ultrasound at the hospital? A had classic gallstone symptoms (though he didn’t know that at the time), but no ultrasound was conducted because A doesn’t have insurance. Even if you argue that A does not deserve to have his gallbladder removed if he can’t afford it since it’s not life-threatening, shouldn’t A have a proper diagnosis and advice (ie, the diet changes) when he goes to the hospital? Why should he have to consult his mother’s friend? What if A weren’t fortunate enough to have parents with a doctor friend? What if A still had no idea what was wrong and how to treat it?
Now just imagine if gallstones were a life-threatening condition. The result could be a lot worse than a few unexplained attacks of stomach pain. This happens in hospitals across the country everyday. Yes, there are problems with the Canadian and British systems. But don’t you think that everyone should get a basic level of care?
Oh, and now A has huge medical bills from the hospital, which have made him late on his rent. The bill collectors will find you, and the unpaid bills will negatively affect your credit. Choosing between rent and medical bills - what a fabulous choice. And if A’s bills don’t get paid, guess what? The residents of his county will just pick up the tab in the form of higher taxes anyway. Yeah, great system we’ve got.
Just want to add that I’m not necessarily advocating for a British-style NHS-type program. What I am arguing in favor of is some plan that provides a basic level of healthcare to everyone. There are a number of different ways to achieve this. I don’t claim to know which one is best.
In your example above, not only would A not have gotten the ultrasound, (because the hospital probably wouldn’t have one) but B would have had to wait for at least six months to see a specialist to get his ultrasound, and then another year to 18 months to have the operation scheduled.
gahrie,
First, I didn’t say that we should model our system on the UK.
Second, even if it took as long as you predict, he would have eventually gotten the ultrasound and the surgery. It’s been more than 18 months, and neither has happened. How is that any better?
Virtually everyone who is uninsured in America can get insured through either the Medicare or Medicaid (state-administered) programs. The fact that millions go uninsured speaks more to the unwise policy of many states overregulating healthcare so that it becomes expensive enough that healthy people with sufficient means avoid signing up for it.
Once upon a time, I had a girlfriend who was uninsured and regularly went to the ER for primary care (including birth control). And people wonder why hospitals all over the Southwest are closing their emergency rooms….
The American healthcare system is screwed up, without a doubt. Comparing the American system to the Canadian and British systems is rather silly, though; that’s like asking, Would you rather be buried naked in an avalanche or suited up in winter clothing in the middle of Death Valley in July? All those choices suck, and the message of reform should be to create a combo system that provides universal, mandatory coverage/premiums that is privately managed and consumer-driven. This concept is antithetical to the Canadian, American, and European healthcare systems, which all treat some combination of government bureaucracy and overregulation as the recipe for success. And instead we have miserable failure.
I remember watching a CBC special on the Canadian healthcare system when I was a kid and it was about this guy who had bleeding hemorrhoids for four years before he could get them operated on. I was like ten at the time and I remember asking my mum what a hemorrhoid was and being HORRIFIED by her answer. And I was like, man, if I had bleeding hemorrhoids, I would not want socialized medicine because I would pay up the ass to get them removed.
Anyway, I’m not so sure that I like the idea of the gov’t picking up the baby boomers’ health tab, but I do strongly support universal health care for kids 18 and under. San Fran has universal health insurance now but for years they had care for kids and I think that’s an investment that I would be willing to pay for. I don’t give a shit about giving 90-year-old Mrs. Wilson 35 pills a day. But I do think that as a society we can pick up the tab to get all our kids vaccinated and treated for childhood illnesses and the like. But Mrs. Wilson votes and little kids don’t, so I wouldn’t expect to see that become policy any time soon.
Becky, you say you don’t like the government picking up the Boomers’ tab for health care, but don’t you realize that you’re paying for uninsured Boomers’ hospital visits through higher taxes and/or a reduction of other public services?
If we’re going to pay for healthcare one way or another, there’s got to be a more efficient system than routing the poor to emergency rooms, where the taxpayers foot the bill and those who can’t buy wind up with bad credit or in bankruptcy.
I really don’t know what the answer is, but the status quo sucks. Unless you’re wealthy. Or work for state or federal government. Speaking of that - why is it that nobody wants to pay for fellow citizens’ healthcare, but nobody raises a stink that government employees have some of the best health insurance plans in the country. Guess who pays for that?
Andrew, I won’t argue the merits of a universal cock up in the Health care industry world wide. I will ask, why does it necessarily have to be private. At the Federal level Medicare / Medicaid have very little bureaucratic overhead and are quite efficient. Likewise the health plan provided for members of congress and government employees is in many instances private, in some public and in others some strange mix of the two. I’d say the best way to fix the problem is throw the whole rule book out the window along with everyone’s particular dog in the fight. Then figure out what it is we want to be able to do. And then go about designing a system that will do that, whatever that happens to be, effectively and efficiently. Screw everything else lets get back to the basic root of the issue and go from there.
dcl and C and Andrew - how about requiring that the legislators’ health coverage be no better than the worst care available to any citizen or *legal* resident ?
Have Congress subject to the same laws as the rest of us, and health care would improve amazingly rapidly …
The only problem is that Congress would have to agree to it - and the last time we got close to that was one of the first Bills passed by the 1995 Congress …
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:00:34 am
I like it. I want that bumper sticker bad.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:20:50 am
heh, the sad thing is you probably need to put a big sarcasm tag on this post, i bet there are people who are going to accuse you of supporting being a member of the VRWC now :)
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:38:10 am
I’m hoping the winking smiley face will do the trick, but we’ll see.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:41:03 am
P.S. Are you questioning my VRWC street cred? Don’t you remember I’m a Lieberman supporter? That makes me not just a member of the VRWC, but also a member of the vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil moneyed neocon JEEEWWWWWS! :)
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:28:38 am
I recommend a Grey’s Anatomy spinoff.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:07:12 am
Saw Sicko with my sister and her boyfriend. I learned that when Medicare doesn’t work that’s an indictment of privatized health care, that nothing says freedom like the Canadian police coming when you try to get medical care, that you can dismiss criticisms of socialism’s dramatic failures by screaming “Communism!” in a mocking tone, that the Soviet Union’s health care system doesn’t count, that government should do our laundry, that it’s capitalism’s fault that devestating illnesses are devestating, that heavy heavy taxation is free, that we should be jealous of the prisoners at Guantanamo for their wonderful health care and quality of life, and that Cuba is a land of plenty and freedom under Castro’s benevolent leadership.
Knowing how the audience would react, I only said at the end, “I still say we keep laundry privatized.” Okay, I may have yelled at the screen that Castro and Che Guevara are and were murderous evil bastards…
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:42:39 am
I rate this post hilarious.
That said, I think it’s sad that most people don’t understand the difference between socialized medicine (govt. runs the health system) and universal coverage (everybody has insurance coverage). Proposals by Dems are generally for universal coverage, not socialized care. And I think we can all agree that universal coverage is a goal worth striving toward.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:58:51 pm
A pretty smart guy once said, “Some people look at the world and ask Why? I ask, Why Not?”.
If you think getting billed 600 dollars for a 10 cent X-ray is right, that’s cool. I don’t think Hospitals should be able to bill excessively just because MOST people have insurance to pick up the tab. There is simply more efficient and more intelligent ways to handle healthcare especially in a country as enterprising as the United States.
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:05:50 pm
Brit: “Well, we all pay a bit to the NHS in our taxes. That way, if we get ill then we can have free health care.”
Bizarre American: “COMMUNIST!”
It’s sad that these promising doctors are suspects though, I really hope that some mistake has been made, as for some reason it just shocks me that anyone would deliberately go against their hippocratic oath.
I like the NHS. My sister’s a nurse.
That weird American again: “PINKO COMMIE SUBVERSIVE!”
etc.
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:40:14 pm
Sean -
Glad you learned all those things. Were you under the impression that the American system was perfect, with 40+ million people doing just peachy without basic health care?
One reviewer stated this: “Having ‘enjoyed’ first-hand experience of two of these three health systems — the British and the Canadian — I can attest that they’re not quite as idyllic as Mr. Moore paints them. Except in comparison with the U.S. system, of course, and that’s the point.”
Ever been without health insurance? Ever had to deal with a catastrophic illness even with insurance? Can you imagine what it would be like without it?
I guess mostly rich suburbanites can make fun of universal health care as “socialist”, but those in the uninsured ranks probably think it’s deadly serious.
Perhaps the British or Canadian systems aren’t right for America; but maybe they are, given that it seems to work. Or maybe we should see how the Massachusetts experiment works out. But the status quo, which the film sets out to criticize, isn’t working for enough people that something needs to change.
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:53:20 pm
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=6177
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:32:53 pm
Briandot - I happen to have experienced not only the British NHS and the US Healthcare system - I have also experienced what the Canadian system is like …
The UK system back 40 years ago was remarkably effective … GPs (General Practitioners - sort of the proto-PCPs) made house-calls, people needing operations went into hospital and got them … unfortunately, nowadays, as an example, there was a recent case of a hospital penalised financially by the NHS for not delaying the care it gave its patient community sufficiently - apparently they were making the other hospitals around (and the Government Department) look bad …
The Canadian system 30 years ago also was reasonably good - very much similar to the UK system - but it, too, has gone the way of the UK system, rationing healthcare more and more … also with delays for procedures …
The US system has its flaws - but - as far as I know, if you come down with an illness in the US and you don’t have health insurance, you can go to the local county hospital and they will treat you … you have to be willing to wait in line at the County Hospital emergency room to be seen, but you will eventually be seen …
And that is basically what the UK and Canadian systems have, too … rationing - where the prosperous can circumvent the system to get care-on-demand and the rest of the folk get to wait …
What I *know* I don’t want to see here is the importation of the worst of the socialised systems to be run by bureaucrats here !
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:26:20 pm
Alasdair, As I see it there is one significant problem with your argument. Namely, who pays for the uninsured. Lets go with uninsured and can’t possibly pay. In our system that person is usually required to declare bankruptcy (something that is significantly harder to do now thanks to your lot–even in cases where it really is necessary.) So then the Hospital is stuck with the bill. Nobody pays the hospital back in our system. They must find some way to swallow the cost–hence 8 zillion dollars for a X-ray so that the three that get paid for cover the 60 or so that didn’t. That or, you know just close the emergency room so that they don’t have a legal requirement to see uninsured patients. That step is becoming very common and is a very serious public health issue.
Also, the way that scenario is set up it is not really fair to anyone. We can do much better.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:03:11 pm
Alasdair, if you think you can just go to the county hospital and get treated without insurance, I suspect you’ve never been in that predicament. Ever heard the phrase “treat ‘em & street ‘em”? It happens a lot.
Here’s a great example, straight from my family. A family member, A, went to the emergency room. A’s symptoms were the EXACT same as the symptoms B had previously had. B had been diagnosed with gallstones and had the gallbladder removed. (B had health insurance.) The doctors at the emergency room ran some blood tests on A, told him everything was fine, that he did not have gallstones, and sent him on his way with no treatment. B consulted his mother’s friend who was a gastrointestinal specialist; said specialist said that an ultrasound is needed to detect gallstones. Google “detecting gallstones,” and you will find numerous authorities to support this. His advice for A was to eat a lower fat diet and to particularly be careful about eating too close to bedtime. A’s symptoms have continued, but following the specialist’s advice has lessened the attacks and made them more manageable. The family is 99% certain A has gallstones, but he has not been diagnosed by a professional.
In this case, gallstones are not a life-threatening condition, so A can continue to live a normal life with some modifications in diet. But the question remains - why wasn’t A given an ultrasound at the hospital? A had classic gallstone symptoms (though he didn’t know that at the time), but no ultrasound was conducted because A doesn’t have insurance. Even if you argue that A does not deserve to have his gallbladder removed if he can’t afford it since it’s not life-threatening, shouldn’t A have a proper diagnosis and advice (ie, the diet changes) when he goes to the hospital? Why should he have to consult his mother’s friend? What if A weren’t fortunate enough to have parents with a doctor friend? What if A still had no idea what was wrong and how to treat it?
Now just imagine if gallstones were a life-threatening condition. The result could be a lot worse than a few unexplained attacks of stomach pain. This happens in hospitals across the country everyday. Yes, there are problems with the Canadian and British systems. But don’t you think that everyone should get a basic level of care?
Oh, and now A has huge medical bills from the hospital, which have made him late on his rent. The bill collectors will find you, and the unpaid bills will negatively affect your credit. Choosing between rent and medical bills - what a fabulous choice. And if A’s bills don’t get paid, guess what? The residents of his county will just pick up the tab in the form of higher taxes anyway. Yeah, great system we’ve got.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:07:45 pm
Just want to add that I’m not necessarily advocating for a British-style NHS-type program. What I am arguing in favor of is some plan that provides a basic level of healthcare to everyone. There are a number of different ways to achieve this. I don’t claim to know which one is best.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:12:32 pm
C:
In the UK;
In your example above, not only would A not have gotten the ultrasound, (because the hospital probably wouldn’t have one) but B would have had to wait for at least six months to see a specialist to get his ultrasound, and then another year to 18 months to have the operation scheduled.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:40:22 pm
gahrie,
First, I didn’t say that we should model our system on the UK.
Second, even if it took as long as you predict, he would have eventually gotten the ultrasound and the surgery. It’s been more than 18 months, and neither has happened. How is that any better?
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:45:12 pm
Virtually everyone who is uninsured in America can get insured through either the Medicare or Medicaid (state-administered) programs. The fact that millions go uninsured speaks more to the unwise policy of many states overregulating healthcare so that it becomes expensive enough that healthy people with sufficient means avoid signing up for it.
Once upon a time, I had a girlfriend who was uninsured and regularly went to the ER for primary care (including birth control). And people wonder why hospitals all over the Southwest are closing their emergency rooms….
The American healthcare system is screwed up, without a doubt. Comparing the American system to the Canadian and British systems is rather silly, though; that’s like asking, Would you rather be buried naked in an avalanche or suited up in winter clothing in the middle of Death Valley in July? All those choices suck, and the message of reform should be to create a combo system that provides universal, mandatory coverage/premiums that is privately managed and consumer-driven. This concept is antithetical to the Canadian, American, and European healthcare systems, which all treat some combination of government bureaucracy and overregulation as the recipe for success. And instead we have miserable failure.
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:03:28 pm
I remember watching a CBC special on the Canadian healthcare system when I was a kid and it was about this guy who had bleeding hemorrhoids for four years before he could get them operated on. I was like ten at the time and I remember asking my mum what a hemorrhoid was and being HORRIFIED by her answer. And I was like, man, if I had bleeding hemorrhoids, I would not want socialized medicine because I would pay up the ass to get them removed.
Anyway, I’m not so sure that I like the idea of the gov’t picking up the baby boomers’ health tab, but I do strongly support universal health care for kids 18 and under. San Fran has universal health insurance now but for years they had care for kids and I think that’s an investment that I would be willing to pay for. I don’t give a shit about giving 90-year-old Mrs. Wilson 35 pills a day. But I do think that as a society we can pick up the tab to get all our kids vaccinated and treated for childhood illnesses and the like. But Mrs. Wilson votes and little kids don’t, so I wouldn’t expect to see that become policy any time soon.
July 4th, 2007 at 12:31:56 am
Becky, you say you don’t like the government picking up the Boomers’ tab for health care, but don’t you realize that you’re paying for uninsured Boomers’ hospital visits through higher taxes and/or a reduction of other public services?
If we’re going to pay for healthcare one way or another, there’s got to be a more efficient system than routing the poor to emergency rooms, where the taxpayers foot the bill and those who can’t buy wind up with bad credit or in bankruptcy.
I really don’t know what the answer is, but the status quo sucks. Unless you’re wealthy. Or work for state or federal government. Speaking of that - why is it that nobody wants to pay for fellow citizens’ healthcare, but nobody raises a stink that government employees have some of the best health insurance plans in the country. Guess who pays for that?
July 4th, 2007 at 3:07:14 am
Andrew, I won’t argue the merits of a universal cock up in the Health care industry world wide. I will ask, why does it necessarily have to be private. At the Federal level Medicare / Medicaid have very little bureaucratic overhead and are quite efficient. Likewise the health plan provided for members of congress and government employees is in many instances private, in some public and in others some strange mix of the two. I’d say the best way to fix the problem is throw the whole rule book out the window along with everyone’s particular dog in the fight. Then figure out what it is we want to be able to do. And then go about designing a system that will do that, whatever that happens to be, effectively and efficiently. Screw everything else lets get back to the basic root of the issue and go from there.
July 5th, 2007 at 10:55:11 pm
dcl and C and Andrew - how about requiring that the legislators’ health coverage be no better than the worst care available to any citizen or *legal* resident ?
Have Congress subject to the same laws as the rest of us, and health care would improve amazingly rapidly …
The only problem is that Congress would have to agree to it - and the last time we got close to that was one of the first Bills passed by the 1995 Congress …