Considering ObamaCare? Consider the NHS Horror Stories
Another horror: a woman was forced to give birth on the sidewalk because an ambulance was refused:
A young mother gave birth on a pavement outside a hospital after she was told to make her own way there. Mother-of-three Carmen Blake called her midwife to ask for an ambulance when she went into labor unexpectedly with her fourth child. But the 27-year-old claims she was refused an ambulance and told to walk the 100m from her house in Leicester to the city’s nearby Royal Infirmary.
And Reuters is reporting that the UK has rejected a breakthrough drug for cancer from Bayer — citing cost concerns. It has been rejected by National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for the the treatment of kidney cancer:
This proposal by NICE conflicts dramatically with the government’s strategy to bring UK cancer outcomes in-line with the rest of Europe, where Nexavar is already widely available in countries such as France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Romania, and Greece.
And an NHS failure even allowed a murderer to be released. He then went on to kill and eat a friend. His release into the community was said to be a result of a “systematic” failure in his care:
Convicted killer Peter Bryan was given permission to live in a hostel in north London where he could come and go as he pleased. He had been admitted to a secure hospital after beating shop assistant Nisha Sheth to death with a hammer in 1993.
In reaction to the breakdowns in the NHS, there has been a call for debate on the future of the system. Yet it has been and remains too difficult to have such a debate openly in light of the visceral attacks unleashed on critics of the institution.
There is no simple solution to this problem. Like many dilemmas arising from a sudden explosion in the number of very ill, old patients in the NHS, it requires painstaking medical and ethical debate. But are we, as a nation, prepared to hold such a debate — that is, to face up to the difficulty of funding comprehensive health care through taxation alone?
The experience of the past few weeks suggests not. President Obama’s health care proposals prompted a wave of American criticism of British-style socialized medicine. Britons reacted angrily, with a “We love the NHS” campaign that sought to close down the debate about alternative revenue streams for the health service. Both Labour and the Conservatives implied that it was unpatriotic to question the status quo.
Is this what America wants for its future? A mediocre health service paid for by taxation (which no matter what they say, must increase) that you will never be able to criticize for fear of being called unpatriotic?
These cases are simply not representative of the NHS.
Please ignore Steven.
He’s a troll.
He only wants to lead you away into discussing him and not the issues.
Maybe he’ll return to his home under the bridge.
“Having been injected into the U.S. debate, the failures of Britain’s NHS finally come to light.”
Another article stirring up the paranoia cauldron.
Mistakes are made in every system and country. What you have to ask yourself is ‘Was it human error?’ or ‘Was it a system error?’
Human error is preventable and correctable.
System error is a function of legislation and management.
They did happen under it though. You say that Steven yet we hear more and more cases of this variety. Have you even delved into that report mentioned in the piece, it makes for pretty dire reading.
1. Steven:
These cases are simply not representative of the NHS.
If you follow UK newspapers, there are more than enough horror stories presented there to suggest otherwise.
Even ignoring all the evidence, one has to be pretty naive to give the benefit of doubt to a faceless bureaucracy.
Thank you Steven (#1) for your in-depth rebuttal of the facts presented. I think we can safely assume you are not an attorney?
Apparently you didn’t follow the link in the article to the “detailed report”.
ATP: So often people criticising have not even bothered to follow the links provided. This is especially the case if they might affect their particular world view.
Bureaucracy never does anything well except taxing people and then wasting it.
I was in England in on vacation in 2004 when I stumbled and broke my foot. We contacted the medical authorities. I was told there would be a three day wait for a “free” NHS x-ray. Fortunately, England, unlike Canada, allows private physicians so I paid out of pocket to see an MD and was able to get a fracture boot which alleviated the pain. My insurance company reimbursed the cost. Hardly a life-and-death story, but, to your comment, Steve, probably VERY representative of the quality of NHS care.
I don’t mean to frighten you, but I predict that legions of displaced ACORN associates will be mannng the desks at the Obama-care bureaucracy. In fact, I am willing to bet on it. Be prepared for surreal conversations with officious semi-illiterates. Think not? Visit you local post office, or social security office. Difficult to resist the grinding relentless power of mediocrity.
I dislocated and fractured my shoulder and broke my nose. Within 30 minutes I was at a minor injuries unit. They cleaned me up, gave me painkillers and Xrayed me. 90 minutes later I was in the nearest A&E; my Xrays came online and a couple of nice lady doctors wrestled my shoulder back into place. I had my accident at midday and was home by 7 pm. The following week I saw an ENT specialist about my broken nose and a few days later saw an ortho consultant about my shoulder. Three months of physio followed. No one asked me for my credit card!
With a large system there will always be problems. For instance, the UK papers are full of the horrors of US immigration officers and their antics. I know that these are just glitches in the system, but I don’t think I will be travelling to the States again. Shame but there you are.
I know lots of people here and in the UK, and the medical “horror” stories here tend to be a lot worse than the ones over there, especially if they involve the elderly.
Obama Care isn’t anything like NHS. Nothing at all like it.
Thus, your comparison is false. And you are contributing to the dumbing down of an already quite dumb America.
“Considering ObamaCare?”
Not really. I don’t care to part of any health care “system” that will put me in jail if I don’t want to join, for starters.
Plus, I’d just as soon not get the level of care that people in the Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment got, so I’ll take a pass on federally controlled health care. They have a nasty track record of not helping people when it isn’t expedient to do so from their POV.
A caller on C-Span’s American Journal this morning, brought up a very good question:
What about people who use Charity [Medi-Share is Christian] type donated time/money/medical care rather than insurance or Medicare for their needs? Will they be forced onto 0bamacare because they are not ‘insured’?
I work in the N.H.S have done for 20yrs,frontline.
I am confident that i am speaking for the whole of the U.K when i say we are not bothered what health system you have in the U.S.A.
There isn’t a huge movement here to implant the N.H.S in America.
I am not interested in comparing our two countries health care ,it’s obviously up to you what system you have. I am just explaining what goes on here.(U.K)
The N.H.S is not about big government control
British citizens fought shoulder to shoulder during ww2.From all different backgrounds and income,as equal’s
However soldiers recovery and civillian’s injured during the bombing, would be based on income.
This was unacceptable and as a country the feeling was and still is,if possible health shouldn’t be based on ability to pay.
The N.H.S isn’t government led,it’s tax payer led.
Elections are won and lost here on health service policy.We do not just blindly support it.
We whine and debate it because we are share holders. This means we are accountable to the tax payer and we have to prove that tax payers money is being used wisely.
Also we can criticize it but nobody else can or we will send you all to the tower.
http://www.theawl.com/2009/08/america-teaches-britain-to-love-the-nhs
We are well versed in it’s problem’s and want to make it better.
Nobody is calling to abolish it.
We could trade examples of crap care in both countries system.
Debate require’s knowledge from all sides of the issue.
That seems to be lacking here.
However i don’t believe posters want to know more about patient choice,waiting times,what is covered by the N.H.S and what is not.
Problem’s with asylum seekers,how it is funded.
The role of the private sector or why it is supported by the majority here.
People on both sides of the debate always point to the “horror” stories but those only serve to sensationalize and do not tackle the real problem.
The problem is the entire philosophy of such a system, the false and dangerous notions upon which it is built, and the destructive means which it must use to enforce it’s own prerogatives.
I suggest reading the myriad articles and works of Theodore Dalrymple if you want to know UK Health care in the bigger picture.
you don’t need UK horror stories.
I’ve seen exactly one article on the Indian Health Service’s problems. Heck, I haven’t even seen one article about the VA….
And not one person has bothered to look at the high overhead in the IHS or other Federally subsidized “community health clinics” for the poor.
Atention, seniors. Thanks for all of you past support. Thanks for remembering to pay your taxes (despite advice to the contrary by your local ACORN rep). Thanks for raising your families, obeying the law, accepting, unflinchingly adversity, hard times, whatever. Well, thanks, good job. But now you must make way for the younger future of our country. They deserve your support. And healthcare dollars. So that is why an important component of Obama-care is LED For Seniors. And I sincerely hope that in the true American spirit you will support LED For Seniors. ? LED? Let Em Die. The compassionite healthcare program designed to expedite a seniors transition to the next world.
Mr. Dodge
Your ad hominem attack on bureaucracy ignores the fact that even in private medicine & insurance, there are bureaucracies too. Do you think these large hospitals or Blue Cross are run out of someone’s basement?
Rahmbo
the government has been running Medicare for over 40 years, which most senior citizens use. How come in all that time no death boards? It’s nice to see such clear and original thinking on the part of cons.
Listen to (15.) mags and shut your lies off.
Listening to the truth may cure paranoia.
Far out. To someone sitting on the sidelines, the debate going on in the US right now is nuts. Australia has a single-payer public health system that saves us a packet. For what it covers, it leaves patients with no bills. It doesn’t cover everything, but we also have a competitive private health insurance industry which does – and we pay a fraction of the figures thrown about in the last US election for private cover. I personally pay $1200 a year (australian) for full private cover. It’s mine – it’s not tied to my employer and there are stiff rules which prevent it from screwing me over when the going gets tough, and our insurance market is extremely competitive – and while there ARE non-profits (mine is one), some of our best-performing listed companies are insurance companies.
What’s wrong with out public system alone? There are compromises. There are usually co-payments required for visiting a GP, and elective surgery usually has a waiting list. Dental is not covered (by the fed – the states sometimes have schemes, but it’s incomplete). On the other hand, I stumbled into my local hospital’s emergency department a few weeks ago (my kidneys had stopped working a day or so previously), got fantastic treatment and walked out again without paying a cent. I could personally afford to pay, but the vagrant in the bed on my left, the really old guy on my right and the guy across the aisle who’d started having seizures after going cold-turkey probably couldn’t. I’m fine with covering them – I see it as part of living in a fantastic country not to leave people to the wolves.
Do we have “horror stories”? Yes, we do (sometimes they’re even true). So does the NHS, and so does the US. I’m sure even the well-run germany has medical “horror stories”. That’s not a function of public/private health – it’s a symptom of an industry that involves high risks and frequently resists reform and oversight. I’m all for seeing that improve, and I’m sure it can, but it’s got nothing to do with a public option. My own personal “favorite” medical horror story happened to my dad in an expensive private hospital, with an expensive private surgeon. By contrast, my experiences with public health have always been first-rate.
I think australia’s health system is pragmatic, it works, it means people aren’t left swinging in the breeze. It saves us (as a country) a heck of a lot of money by ensuring competitive insurance and medical/pharmaceutical markets. If you measure our “amenable mortality” (the number of deaths per year that could have been avoided with medical treatment) we’re about second in the world (or so) – while the US isn’t even in the race (and it’s going backwards). Don’t believe me? Look it up. I gather we spend about 1/2 per capita what the US does, and that’s with everyone covered. We also do our bit (as a country) for medical research – I’m still chuffed that arnold vinnick’s (a.k.a alan alda’s) example of a US medical breakthrough in that West Wing debate was actually made by a couple of guys in perth, who won a nobel prize for it.
To any reasonably sane australian, the answer to the argument going on in the US right now is a no-brainer. I can’t believe you’ve got ANYBODY arguing against this move, let alone the hysteria that’s been brewing over there. You’re really letting an opportunity go to waste right now, and you’re going to pay dearly for it. It’s actually painful to watch.
18. Rahmbo:
Please report to your LED death panel on Monday at 9:00 AM. You are first in line. No waiting.
Oh – and another thing. Stories of “government gone mad” or (even better) “political correctness gone mad” from the UK are usually a pack of B.S. Their conservative press (mostly tabloids) generates these things in bulk, and they sometimes float our way to Oz where they’re breathlessly repeated by the andrew bolts and tim blairs. If you bother to check the facts, you’ll quickly discover they’re almost always beat-ups. Just at a glance, I personally do not believe that somebody in the UK got fired for getting sick and going to hospital. That’s a load of rubbish, and you’re a fool if you believe it. That being a central part of that guy’s story, I’m not inclined to take the rest of it at face value any more either. I’m sure _something_ unusual happened, but I wouldn’t trust that telling of the story.
There are many who are in end stage cancer, or end stage Aids, or Kidney Failure, etc , what about them? Will they be counseled to “let go” take the prescribed morphine and ativan” which if take in a titrated up volumn will shut down the respiratory system and death happens. The Gay Community seems to be comfortable about the Obama Care, because i have not heard any gays raise their voice. Pelosi needs to explain whether or not they will be given the medications, which are very expensive, in order to live another week, month, or will they be told procedure denied or treatment denied by stalling off on the next visit to their doctor?
This is not just a Senior Citizen healthcare plan. Their are parents with children who suffer multiple handicaps and many of these kids are cared for in their homes with the 24/6 nursing. Will the Gov’t plan end the life of these children at birth? Crazy question? No, it isn’t. Nearing, end stage Aids, will they get the meds and hospitaization that will extend their zest for living? Or will they be part of the government bottom line?
As an american living in Britain, I have lived under both systems. As far as stories go with waiting times for operations and “some specialist” treatments there are waiting times in Britain. They also have private health care options in Britain, some in the debate (from the american right) say they do not and that is a lie. As far as people losing all they have for treatment in America, that is true. However, when it comes to routine, preventive medicine Britain does it better, mainly because this is available to 99.99% of the public. By the way, stories of waiting for emergency treatment, x-rays, stitches etc. etc. is fabrication. Both countries (oops and canada too) have essentially very high quality when it comes to emergency treatment.
“There are many who are in end stage cancer, or end stage Aids, or Kidney Failure, etc , what about them? Will they be counseled to “let go””
I’m sorry, but … in preference to what? In preference to a cure? But there isn’t one. In preference to palliative care? Who’s saying they have to? As far as I understand it, nobody’s saying they have to. Keeping people alive in the situation you’re talking about is actually (in a country with a decent PBS) pretty cheap. Why is it even an issue?
You guys are really screwing yourselves over. Think about it. Come and visit australia for a bit. Talk to people here. Then vote. From where I sit, “obamacare” is probably the smartest thing any president has proposed in quite a while. The sad thing is … you’re actually going to reject it, and you don’t have a clue why you’re doing it.
” If you measure our “amenable mortality” (the number of deaths per year that could have been avoided with medical treatment) we’re about second in the world (or so) – while the US isn’t even in the race (and it’s going backwards). Don’t believe me? Look it up.”
False. The US is right up in thhe top pelleton in ‘amenable mortality”, and top the polls with outcomes across a broad range of conditions.
You’re confusing this with “Mean Life Expectancy at Birth”- a stat which, besides covering accidental deaths and the like, is heavily skewed by the US method of tallying infant mortality, and especially by the horrendous homicide rate among minorities.
However, I’m no criticizing your entire post. The Ozzie system seems to work pretty well, as do the German and Swiss. (The British does NOT). But the monstrosity Obama is proposing resembles none of these in the slightest.
Bohemond: Google “amenable mortality”. 3rd result: “United States has worst rate of amenable mortality”. Other articles give yield the same answer.
For all those talking about bureaucracy, realize that healthcare is *already* administered by bureaucrats. Government bureaucrats (in theory) work for the public interest. Insurance company bureaucrats explicitly work purely for their stockholders’ interest.
I work in a pharmacy myself. I’ve *seen* how insurance companies work. It’s not pretty.
In any case, what is being debated in the US is nothing like the national healthcare other countries have. Even if passed, it won’t do any good at all. An actual national healthcare system would.
Oh, and for those complaining about us not reading the detailed report: the link doesn’t work.
No number of horror stories mean anything unless put in context. How many *true* horror stories are there, compared to how many people? What are the same figures for various countries’ systems? And are these symptoms of the systems, or something else?
“Life expectancy is not uniform across populations within Australia. An issue of particular public interest is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a much lower life expectancy than the general Australian population. Indigenous Australians born in the period 1996-2001 are estimated to have a life expectancy at birth of 59.4 years for males, and 64.8 years for females. This is approximately 16-17 years less than the overall Australian population born over the same period (ABS 2007 cat. no. 3302.0).”
http://www.aihw.gov.au/mortality/life_expectancy/indig.cfm
Thanks, but I’ll take care of my own health care, and not rely on some government to do it for me. People who are essentially totally reliant on some government to take care of their needs have a tendency to not live too long, even in civilized places like Australia where everyone recieves top of the line health care…in theory.
Some people make out fine in places that have government provided health care, but if you belong to the wrong group…you’re screwed.
One point I have never seen mentioned in such discussions is this: the British NHS was organized on the theory that if they got all the people covered, provided preventive (not “preventative”) care, and got them all well, the future cost of the health service would decrease. Obviously, the theory was wrong.
If, as our President ceases not to expound, the reduction of catastrophic, future costs is really the point of Obamacare, the failure of the NHS to accomplish that result, regardless of any other virtue of failing of the system, ought to make our leaders take notice, if they are capable of analyzing anything except their own great theories. (Apparently they are really are not; the CBO has already told them they are wrong, but they seem to be oblivious to that.)
(Oh, and I read now that the French system—which, except for allowing 15000 elderly to die of heat-related causes in a recent hot August, sounds like a pretty good system—is now drifting toward insolvency. Interesting. Does not augur well…)
DocDavid – “If, as our President ceases not to expound, the reduction of catastrophic, future costs is really the point of Obamacare,”
I don’t believe that’s what he means. My take (from what I’ve seen and heard) is that by regulating and by creating a massive single payer, he can force providers to compete in a way they’ve never had to before. Think about what sort of market power that single payer would have. Also, by having the right information, it’s possible to organize services more efficiently, and crack down on waste and charlatans. Done properly, it can work like a charm.
And I don’t think the NHS was organized on the principle you describe – that’s a straw man argument. In any case, are you REALLY so sure it hasn’t saved the country money?
Dave Surls – “Life expectancy is not uniform across populations within Australia.”
Absolutely, and it’s a disgrace. But the problem with the aborigines has nothing to do with public health care (without which there wouldn’t BE any aborigines – a harsh claim, I know). The people we’re talking about pose a bunch of very interesting problems, many of their own making (but not all, as somebody’s sure to point out). Imagine a few tens of thousands of people scattered in nomadic camps across an area the size of, say, texas. They don’t live anywhere near modern health services (australia’s population is much more highly concentrated than the US’ – we pretty much cling to the coasts), and when services are provided, they don’t use them. Alcoholism and violence are huge problems – so much so that stories of widespread child sexual abuse recently prompted the fed to dispatch the army. At various times, various sorts of interventions have been launched to stamp out trivially-preventable cases of blindness and deafness in children caused by untreated minor infections – which were ignored by their parents. Schools feed their students because it means they’ll turn up. These are problems that have existed for generations. I don’t know how we’re going to solve them – but I can’t see any way things can improve as long as small numbers of people refuse to give up an isolated, dead-end lifestyle and live somewhere near populated areas and get with the program. By summarizing this in the way I have, I know I’m probably coming across as a racist, but I’m not – these are just the (sad) facts of the case. It’s very unfortunate that the “other side” of the argument hasn’t moved beyond the positions it took in the 70′s (mostly about land rights), none of which has done anyone any good.
As much as it’s a very “bad look”, and I agree it’s a big problem, I don’t think the aboriginal problem is indicative of public health as a whole in australia. The government is not forcing this situation on anyone, believe me.
Big deal. Britain’s national health system makes some mistakes. Here in the U.S. hospital mistakes kill 100,000 people a year. On top of that, at least people living in England can get medical treatment. In the U.S., no money, no treatment. I guess our system is: if you are poor, you die. We went to war when 3,500 people died in terror attacks but 20,000 people die every year because they can’t afford a doctor. Is this what the Republicans (and some spineless Democrats) want to preserve?
From my OWN personal experience, my husband has stage IV colon cancer, and two of the drugs he has used are Avastin and Erbitux, both expensive drugs that to my knowledge are not covered under the UK health system. I don’t know about the Australian one. But my husband’s case would have been hopeless without it. Guess his life is just ‘worth’ the drugs here. While the health systems in the UK and Australia may be great for problems where you can afford to wait, cancer survival rates are significantly lower.. so in principle your systems “seem” more humane, but they’re not.
Another good thing about our insurance system here in the US is that there is always a regulatory authority above the insurance company. If you can’t get what you need, you can always try to go through the state and then the federal government. How does that work in the UK?
“two of the drugs he has used are Avastin and Erbitux, both expensive drugs that to my knowledge are not covered under the UK health system”
They are both covered and heavily subsidized here. Check out the pbs.gov.au web site for an official searchable database. The prices to patients for Avastin and Erbitux are both $AU 32.90. You can check it out for yourself if you want to.
I have no idea how to search the NHS services. Maybe someone else here knows.
“cancer survival rates are significantly lower.”
Australia’s aren’t significantly lower at all. Google “CONCORD cancer survival study” and enjoy wading your way through the figures. I think this is the lancet article summary, but it does my head in – check out the PDF link:
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/ncdeu/cancersurvival/concord/phase1/index.htm
From the news coverage of this study (which is pretty woeful), the US and australia are both in the top five countries (with finland, japan and canada) and the survival rate actually depends on the sort of cancer – japan is in the lead for colorectal cancers.
“so in principle your systems “seem” more humane, but they’re not”
No, really, I honestly think you’re wrong about that. I’m not just making this up. Overall, things work well here, and it costs us a lot less money. It’s that simple.
IEA says NHS worse than drunk-driving. Brand and Oreily think its a great idea.