There is more than a little irony attached to the Obama administration’s determination to pursue socialist, EU-style “solutions” to America’s problems, even as the European Union is coming to grips with the bitter realities such socialism produces. And while Greece and its financial problems receive some media coverage in the United States, there is a much bigger story flying under the mainstream media radar: in Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron has introduced a bill seeking to partially privatize the National Health Service (NHS). Why? Because the British government is “hoping to avoid a Greek-style financial meltdown.”
The system’s defenders are upset. The Times of London is reporting that Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is in the eye of the storm. “Andrew Lansley should be taken out and shot,” said an unnamed “Downing Street source.” “He’s messed up both the communication and the substance of the policy.” The source further contended that Lansley was “a disaster” and “a law unto himself.” The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing also want the bill withdrawn, as do members of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, the Royal Medical Colleges, including the Royal College of GPs. Unions, including the Royal College of Midwives, want to “kill the bill” as well, while Labor Party leader Ed Miliband accused Mr. Cameron of failing to listen to the experts.
Cameron refuses to back down, insisting there’s too much bureaucracy in the system, and that it interferes with patient care. “If we were as good at treating cancer as the average European country, we would save 5,000 lives a year,” he contended. He further noted that reform will create “a fair system that stops the private sector from picking off contracts and the public sector from providing an inflexible monopoly.” Yet he insisted that “health care for all, free at the point of use, unrelated to the ability to pay” will remain the animating features of the system.
Such euphemisms are at odds with reality. Last November, the NHS’s Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire, running at a loss of $8 million a year on revenues of $143 million, was given over to Circle, a private health care company. Circle was brought in to cut bureaucracy and improve efficiency, and it is the first private company to take over an entire British hospital. Earlier this month, an NHS “watchdog” at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) ruled that a breakthrough drug used to extend the lives of men with late-stage prostate cancer was too expensive to be included in the system. NICE makes calculations based on the “cost of the drug to the NHS according to the number of men likely to be treated.” NICE will pay for some end-of-life drugs for rare diseases. But the current, though unofficial, threshold for QALY (quality-adjusted life year) drugs has been $80,000 for renal cell carcinoma. “Therefore the £63,200 ($101,000) cost per QALY for abiraterone would still not be deemed a cost effective use of NHS resources,” said a NICE statement.
Such rationing–and it is rationing–is nothing new. A 2011 report revealed that independent medical providers were experiencing a growing number of patients choosing to pay for their own care after having treatment delayed or denied altogether by an NHS primary care trust (PCT). A survey of 101 influential industry figures revealed that 34 percent believed “budgetary pressure in the NHS” was the principle cause. At the annual meeting of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) earlier this month, members contended that they were “increasingly being asked to make decisions based on financial rather than clinical reasons and to ration their care,” further noting that such rationing “was on a scale that had never been seen before across both acute and non acute NHS services.”
Last November, such rationing reached a scandalous level. A study by the Co-operation and Competition Panel (CCP) revealed that Primary Care Trust (PCT) heads were imposing arbitrary spending caps, denying patients treatment for procedures such as hip replacements and cataract removals–and that waiting times for services were being deliberately extended “so that patients would go private or die before they were seen” to slash costs. Secretary Lansley was furious. “For too long, Labour turned a blind eye to unfair practices within the NHS which harmed patients,” he said. “No right-thinking person could possibly understand how anyone could delay a patient’s treatment unnecessarily. If patients need treatment, they should get it as soon as possible, and where they choose.”
“As soon as possible” is yet another euphemism. Brits have a legal right under the NHS Constitution to start their hospital treatment–within 18 weeks after a referral by a GP. Yet referrals require diagnoses, and the wait for those is increasing as well. The Guardian reports a 92 percent increase compared to last year in the number of people waiting more than the NHS’s recommended six-weeks for a diagnostic test at an NHS hospital. In other words, even under optimum conditions, people suffering from afflictions such as heart disease and cancer will face more than a five-and-a-half month wait before getting the treatment they need.
Pages: 1 2
We must imitate Europe in everything except correcting errors.
Any service or product that is offered “free at the point of use” will be wasted by the vast majority of users.
Ideologues is right. When Obama took office, the first thing he and the Democrat-controlled congress did was pursue the monster health care bill. All other priorities, like the wars and the tanking economy, were deferred while the Democrats launched their banzai charge for free doctoring. Seemed to me, with everything else that was going on at the time, that the Dems were using their "mandate" not to address glaring issues but to rush through an item on the ancient Progressive agenda.
"That’s not ideology. That’s insanity."
Most big government efforts are.
I have a newspaper article from my local newspaper about a family of English immigrants. Apparently,the parents worked under the British health care system. They moved to America to get AWAY from that system and start new lives here. I wonder what they would think about Obamacare? Their opinion would be the same as Sally Pipes.They would say,"We've seen what government health care is like. Why would you or your president want that?"
Anyone in Britain can obtain private healthcare by paying an insurance company. The British family you referred to could have done this.
The vast majority of us Brits are happy with our National Health Service. It aint perfect, but we do not have 40, 000,000 without any healthcare and hospitals do not have to check our credit rating before they can treat us. Any goverment that made serious a serious attempt to privatise medical care in the U.K, would soon be the ex-government.
I am 82 and have reached that age because of our heallthcare system. Without it I would have been dead 20 years ago.
We are amazed at how much Presidential Candidates have to raise in order to be elected. In the U.K a reasonable limiit is place on the amount a candidate is permitted to spend, thereby creating a reasonably level playing field for all candidates. Its called Socialism…….. oops I.m sorry I mentioned a dirty word.
Mr. Parsons,the reason socialism has a bad name in this country is that it doesn't work. It has never worked anywhere. Most Americans see that. And don't blame immigrants to America for spreading lies about socialized medicine and scaring Americans to death that their freedom might be in danger. We've heard stuff like this and not just from immigrants. We've heard about this from experts on those same systems. Oh,and by the way,the British family in the article were doctors THEMSELVES.
Americans have heard about socialized medicine in places like Great Britain and Canada. Those are similar to what is called Obamacare is promising,Mr. Parsons. Can you see why we're so nervous?
What's going on here? Why are my comments not being shown?
Obummer is so arrogant and stupid that he believes he can make socialized medicine work, even though it has failed everywhere it has been tried, just because he says so. And of course he has the support of Harry the Red and Nancy Palooka, neither of which are towering intellects. I guess that is what we get for electing Socialists and Communist to high office in government.
The British NHS is absolutely wonderful. Were it not for my country's system of free healthcare based on need I would not be alive today and therefore I would not be paying the high taxes that successful businesspeople such as I pay everywhere. I was struggling to get my business off the ground and broke some years ago when I became ill with a life-threatening disease. I was treated in four efficient and immaculate modern NHS hospitals by professional surgeons, and others. Recuperation was also superbly provided by the NHS. I have needed drugs every day since then and those, have been provided to me by the NHS at a price that I can afford now and initially, when I was still stony-broke, free of charge. I know many other people who owe their lives and their subsequent happiness to the free at the point of use treatment as needed NHS. Not all run companies or are wealthy but all are grateful for such a civilised solution to the nations health problems. Needless to say I am a fervent supporter, in my own country, of free at the point of use healthcare paid for out of the public purse and, as a taxpayer, I am more than willing to contribute my share to the public purse to pay for it for myself and for others.
That's not what I hear from refugee Brits, all of whom say that NHS is horrible. Long, sometimes fatal wait time and terrible quality. I'm not even mentioning dentistry – the proof is in the putting (just open your mouth, John, will you?). And so is the Swedish health care system, by the way.
I think you are being misled by a tiny minority who may have had a bad experience – such things happen in any large organisation. I have spoken with many people who have had NHS treatment – remember, our ordinary family Doctors who are most peoples' first, and only, contact with the NHS are also free – and they are all alike in singing the praises of the NHS. I've never needed to avail myself of the free dental treatment that is available on the NHS but my partner has had to and was very pleased with the results as is his current private dentist. In my area emergency dental appointments are available free for anyone 24/7 just by calling the correct number and one of the people who work for me blessed this facility just before Christmas when her own, private, dentist refused to treat her until mid-January because he was going on holiday and said he couldn't afford to arrange locum cover! Incidentally, the dentist in question was going skiing in the USA.
I have a friend that lives in the UK and they HATE their healthcare plan. She had an aunt that needed surgery so she was put on a "waiting list"…while she was waiting, she passed away. That would not have happened here in the US under our present health care. Why do you think so many Canadians come to the US for their surgeries, etc??? They hate their plan and know they will get the care that they need here in the US.
Susan,
That shouldn't have happened even in the NHS and if it did and the aunt passed away due to whatever illness had originally placed her on a waiting list then it would have been investigated by the Police and the Coroner's Office as well as being the subject of an internal investigation in the NHS's own controlling body for the area in which it happened because it would have been deemed manslaughter due to negligence and the Hospital and the aunt's Consultant would have been in deep doo-doo.
I must also point out that no-one is forced to use the NHS. Private clinics exist all over the UK and they always have done. Why didn't your friend pay for the aunt to go private if so little was thought of the NHS.
By the way the US people and government spends over $8,000 per person per year on healthcare which is about 18% of GDP, whereas the UK government spends out of general taxation about $3,500 per person per year, and the figure for private spending is not known but is reckoned to be miniscule, and this is about 5% of our GDP. Our total spend is about 170 billion dollars from the public purse, but the total spend in the USA from the public purse at federal, state and local levels is an estimated 1.9 trillion dollars – and another trillion dollars is spent from private sources such as corporations. Life expectancy in the USA is 50th. in the world, which is below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is well below the average life expectancy for the UK and the European Union generally. So, are you getting value for money?
It is difficult to measure the efficiency of healthcare systems. The NHS, like other healthcare systems, has never consistently and systematically measured changes in its patients’ health. As a result, it’s impossible to say exactly how much the nation's health improves for each pound spent by the NHS.
In the UK life expectancy has been rising and infant mortality has been falling since the NHS was established. Both figures compare very favourably with other nations. Surveys also show that patients are generally satisfied with the care they receive from the NHS. Importantly, people who have had recent direct experience of the NHS tend to report being more satisfied than people who have not.
$8000 hasn't been spent on me… EVER. I haven't been to a doctor in 4 years and I like it that way. Now I will be forced to buy health insurance (even though I don't ever want to go to a doctor) or pay a penalty. Fortunately since I cannot find work (and no I'm not on unemployment because I was self-employed before Obama changed some rules) my penalty will be considerably cheaper than insurance…..
Looks like the Brits has some wisdom in this particular area!
When reporters asked the Prime Minister of Australia about his private health care insurance he replied he did not have any and he would go to the hospital and get treatment like everyone else. Nationalised health care works reasonably well here.
I don't think they understand–American Marxists are not innocent–they want to wreck the USA–like Europe is wrecked! They are quite insane!
What's going on here? Why are my comments not been shown?
I've been trying to respond to Mr. Parsons,but none of my comments seem to be showing up. Why?
"people suffering from afflictions such as heart disease and cancer will face more than a five-and-a-half month wait before getting the treatment they need."
This is utterly untrue. The majority of patients with serious illnesses are seen within 2 weeks. The NHS has never been more popular – and at 9% of GDP as opposed to the shocking 16% of GDP wasted by the US healthcare system – it's efficient too.
M Harris,Americans like me have heard a lot about socialized medicine. We don't want it here. We've heard about the long waits and the deaths from lack of treatment that are common in places like Great Britain and Canada. The NHS might seem like something we might copy,but it won't work. It has NEVER worked anywhere. Americans want to choose their own healthcare. That won't be possible under Obamacare. In fact,the more we find out about it,the less we like.
Americans don't want something like the NHS here. We already have enough problems with healthcare,we don't need any more.
Rubbish, Ghostwriter, it works very well here. Come over and spend some time with me and I'll show you. The vast majority of us are perfectly satisfied with what is an extremely modern and efficient system that delivers good healthcare from cradle to grave – and our life expectancy is, as I said in an earlier comment, much higher than yours – and delivers it at a fraction of the cost that your system does. M Harris's post and my earlier posts give you the statistics on that. Whatever horror tales some maundering journalist has cooked up to retail to you and give you a little frisson of fear over your breakfast table are just that: like Mr Twain's death they are greatly exaggerated. When I was seriously ill my treatment started five minutes after my diagnosis which was made ten minutes after arriving at the hospital – that is the norm for seriously ill people, NOT whatever idiotic scare stories you may have had retailed to you. A streamlined modern NHS delivers great healthcare to a population of approximately sixty million at a fraction of the cost per person that the USA achieves.
Your comments are simply not shown because they have been send for review by the moderator..
Cameron/Lansley's reforms do not apply to Britain, but only to England, in the other countries of the UK (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), there are no changes to the system.
Has so called socialized medicine failed as some here say? What does the data tell us? In the US, life expectancy was 78 years in 2007 in the US, 80.6 in Sweden (health service funded out of taxation), 79.9 in France (social insurance) 78.7 in the UK. Infant mortality was 6.4 deaths per 1,000 live births in the US, 2.8 in Sweden, 4.2 in France and 5.0 in the UK. That's not the entire picture, healthcare costs less per capita in all three European countries than in the US.
So higher costs and worse outcomes in the US. These are averages, but there is also evidence of greater inequities in health across social groups than in Europe. The rich may do better, but the poor (and particularly the unsinsured do much worse.
Very disappointed to find this article so full of falsehoods.
I'm an American who has been living in the UK for many years and my view on socialized medicine has done a 180 since I came here to work. My experiences with medical treatment here have always been excellent. I've never had to wait long to see my doctor. When I had a hip operation I saw my doctor, had x-rays taken, saw the specialist surgeon and had the operation all over about a two month period. I could have paid to have the operation performed privately, but the only difference is I would have had a private room instead of a shared room in the ward.
Further, I had a resurfacing of the joint rather than a hip replacement, which is less invasive and damaging to the body. I have learned that doctors don't like performing resurfacing operations in the US because they make more money with the full hip replacement. In the US, doctors provide service to maximize their profit, not to necessarily provide the best and most appropriate service.
There has never been the slightest hesitation to provide treatment, help, or medication in my experience. That includes when I became ill when in Belfast, asking for a second opinion for osteonecrosis at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary or using their emergency service at Foresterhill Hospital in Aberdeen.
I'm an American living in the UK who has experienced the NHS first hand. The NHS saved my life, they caught a borderline cancer that if left would have developed into an aggressive cancer that could have ended up killing me. I was treated in an new modern hospital, with a top notch surgeon. I had a private room, and stayed three days with excellent care. I could not fault them on anything. I thank god every day that the NHS was there for me when I needed them the most.