Community | August 23, 2009 | 32 comments

Frontline: LET'S ATTACK BRITAIN'S NHS!!

Image
asherp
VIDEO AT LINK

VIEW: Our 10 minute clip about the U.K's 60-year-old health care system. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that critics of Obama's health proposals who say he wants to nationalize America's system point to the alleged pitfalls and failures with Britain's "socialized medicine."

That's sent Britain's politicians and citizens into a tizzy -- sample the Twitter campaign.

This video is from Sick Around the World, with Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid.

Here's a synopsis of the full program (which you can watch online) and a short summary of how things work in the government-run NHS.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Current Tonight,   US Politics,   13 more
  2. tags:
    News UK Health Care England 6 more
  3.     
    |

32 comments // Frontline: LET'S ATTACK BRITAIN'S NHS!!

  • iamaman
    • iamaman  
    • This comment was removed by its owner.
  • J_Jammer
  • J_Jammer
  • chasingame
    • 0
      chasingame  
    • @J_J.. To be honest I do not know exactly what their coverage is but I am sure it is better than mine.

      I guess. In a perfect world. The way I see it. If there is universal health care the people should be allowed to go wherever they want for treatment and the (private) hospitals should get reimbursed for the treatment that they provide. That would still create competition for better quality and timely health care because no one would go to hospitals with bad reputations or long waits. Hospitals would be competing for equal compensation so there would be no "deals" made under the table like their is now between hospitals and insurance companies and so on. It just seems that it would be a better system to me. The only ones that suffer from this are the insurers but what do they actually do anyways? Nothing! They do not put needles in a patient for an IV, prescribe drugs, perform surgery, treat illnesses, or provide any actual care. They only take a huge sum of funds out of the system that could be paying for health care.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • iamaman
  • cwhite
    • cwhite  
    • This comment was removed by its owner.
  • davesarush
  • J_Jammer
  • J_Jammer
  • asherp
  • J_Jammer
  • chasingame
    • 0
      chasingame  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      "So you pay in time...more so."

      J_Jammer... Do you think our health care is that cheap or what? I did the math on my insurance. It will cost me over $340,000 for insurance for the rest of my life and that is making two giant assumptions. First... that I never have to go to the hospital because I have deductibles and an 80-20 copay if I do. Second... The current trend of health care costs doubling every ten years would have to stop immediately. As it stands I pay pretty much the same for insurance as I do for taxes. My taxes pay for schools, roads, military defense, and a whole lot more. What have I gotten for my insurance dollars? Very little. Besides, are you saying my taxes will double if this health care reform passes? I don't think so but even if it does I am OK with that knowing that everyone can get care.

      Are you that anti government or are you defending a very broken system?

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      If someone makes 150$ an hour and they need a shot --- just a shot, and they have to wait 5 hours to get that shot, even though it is free, they have waisted 5 hours.

      That's a cost of $750 for a single shot.

      What I am stating is that no matter which system one gets...one is paying for it all the same. Either time wasted or money wasted.

      I don't see how any system offered makes any improvements on anything that is already here.

    • 2 years ago
  • chasingame
    • 0
      chasingame  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      I don't know what your situation is but I explained mine. Not only would government health care most likely cost me less but it could cover EVERYONE. How can that not be an improvement? The current system is very expensive for me. Provides me with mediocre coverage. And it leaves 40 million Americans uncovered. That means that the government (you and I) have to pick up their bill anyways. The ONLY winner in the current system is the insurance industry. But that stands to reason because they came up with the system. They let the government cover those over 65 because they require more medical care on average. They let the government cover those with preexisting conditions for the same reason. They let the government cover the poor because they cannot pay for insurance. Then the insurance industry fights tooth and nail to cover the rest of us because we can afford (barely) to pay them billions a year in administrative costs and we require the least care. Then, to top it all off, when we do get into a serious (expensive) medical situation they have their army of people looking for ways NOT to cover us anymore so they can dump the cost back on us. Honestly I do not see how a single payer could be worse. I can, however, see how they can make it worse if they continue down the path that they are on letting the GOP and insurance industry rewrite this bill to their liking. I have said it before and I will say it again. Single payer is the way to go if we want to save this country.

    • 2 years ago
  • div
    • 0
      div  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      "If someone makes 150$ an hour and they need a shot --- just a shot, and they have to wait 5 hours to get that shot, even though it is free, they have waisted 5 hours."

      Wait, what kind of shot is this? Is it a flu shot? Because I can make an appointment with my doctor or go to a walk in clinic to get that shot on my own time schedule. I don't have to wait in an emergency room in order to get it for free.

      Is it a life saving shot? Then I would likely get it right away if I need it to save my life.

      It might perhaps the the example you used, but I don't think it works in the context you mean.

      I live in Canada, btw.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      Tetanus shot.

      Or one could be on a list to help with a blood flow problem that transfers to the other leg... instead of saving the patient's one leg they had to eventually cut both of because the patient had to wait so long to see a doctor about the problem---because of said list. Location Canada.

      I just don't think there is a pretty happy ending for everyone no matter the system. Someone will always get screwed and it won't be pretty.

      ------

      Chasingame,

      Would it not be best to just have the same coverage as Congress and the President get?

    • 2 years ago
  • div
    • 0
      div  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      I believe the tetanus shot is given prior to infection, correct? That would be easily obtained at your local GP's office.

      As for the leg amputation issue, if a person's limbs are in danger for removal, that would certainly place them closer to first in the waiting line.

      You're right, there will certainly be someone at a disadvantage in any system. However, the difference between Canada's system and the US system is that Canadian citizens have the option of seeing a doctor whenever they like to obtain prescriptions. Many US citizens do not have that option.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • div
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      But you do waste time that you could be doing something else....seeing a movie, watching TV, sleeping comfortably, vacation...whatever..working to make money.

      Unless you are paid to wait then that would make it much better than what we have here.

    • 2 years ago
  • div
    • 0
      div  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      True, the doctor is not always available. But I still have the option of going another day. Or another. The essential point is that I have the choice.

      Sorry I didn't quite understand about the tetanus shot... I'm not sure what kind of emergency, if any, it would be considered. I suppose it depends on the incubation rate of tetanus. Are you sure it's not an emergency though? The bacteria does cause paralysis, and I'd think that would be quite important to take care of asap.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      I'm going to send you this video thing someone made about Canadian Health Care and then you can give me your view.

      I'm not under any illusions that Health Care hear is great. I just don't see how it's going to be much better being like anyone elses. There are tons of problems with all systems. I may not be wasting thousands with someone else's health care but I will be wasting time and that's just like money.

      I do not see how it is better. If it happens, it happens, doesn't mean I have to think it's great.

    • 2 years ago
  • div
    • 0
      div  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      Well. I would be spending the time at a hospital or clinic, KNOWING that I'll be getting help instead of spending time at home WISHING for help.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      IF America was the laughing stock then it would be similar to a third world country...say somewhere in Africa...

      IF America was like somewhere in Africa in tents with little means to help people and the rest of the world was more like Norway with their (if I am not mistaken) number one health care (not UK or France or Canada--why are you not more like them?) then why is it that some of those Norwegians come to Africa for surgery?

      Explain.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • Hypo_Mix:

      Who knew you'd make this so complicated.

      Let me simply this for you.

      IF Canada and UK are so great then why do people travel from there to America to get surgery? And I am NOT talking about boob jobs.

      Hopefully you don't need it more clearer than that.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • div
    • 0
      div  
    • J_Jammer:

      My worse experience was when my sister had a mild fever for several hours on a weekend. We went to the hospital and had to wait about 4-5 hours to see a doctor. She wasn't critical, so we didn't get treatment right away.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • div
    • 0
      div  
    • J_Jammer:

      Definitely worth it. She saw a doctor, despite the time we had to wait, and she got better from it. I do realize however, that what happened to her was very lucky - it was only a mild affliction and one easily cured.

    • 2 years ago
  • iamaman
  • div
more from Community:

top videos