An American NHS

[SeanMacGabhann]

So Obama's ratings are tumbling and the "fair and balanced" Fox network are horsing into the idea - so far so predictable

And many people in this country have legitimate concerns about the UK NHS

But what do you make of the over the top condemnations from the US right? I mean... Evil? Orwellian?

[annaj]

I found that piece this morning through Ben Godlacre's site, quite possibly the same way you did.

It's left me so unspeakably furious I don't think I can rationally debate it at the moment.

The propaganda circulating is wildly inaccurate (no care for cardiac patients over 59? What?) and deeply offensive to the principles of the system and those of us working hard within it. And the idea that a system where money alone dictates the quality of care you receive being morally superior is laughable.

I am left feeling that something must be done about it, but don't know what, and feeling quite let down by the party line that we can't interfer with domestic affairs in the face of such outrageous lies about the system.

[bignumber5]

Perhaps we could do the American thing - the NHS could sue the campaign managers for slander...

[SeanMacGabhann]

Bless you my NHS-representin' massive

What you say is all valid and TRUE

However I'm as interested in the breeding grounds for such flagrant nonsense - this remember, from the same country which a poll showed 28% of Republicans believe Obama was not born in America and therefore has no right to be President

It's the same thinking that gives the word "liberal" it's value as an insult

How mankind ever hopes to evolve when something as basic as can see such a popular president take so much flak I have no idea?

[annaj]

And bless you too Mr just a tiny bit patronising...

There are, of course, wider issues here about the power of propaganda and misinformation, and the willingness of the population to believe what they're told, and the potential for manipulation of the facts by those in power, but like I said far too angry for the philosophical debate.

These are outright lies about the NHS that are going pretty much unchallenged, because our representatives in the states won't get involved.

[SeanMacGabhann]

oops - didn't mean to be patronising

Of course, the debate won't stay confined to the US for too long as opponents of the NHS here will be keeping a watchful eye on the "popular" reaction

[jollybaby]

Humm interesting. There is some truth though - yes many 77 year olds with brain tumours are not treated in the same way as 37 year olds and quite rightly so. If you've seen a 77 year old going through a 6 week course of radiotherapy to the brain you would see why.

[Keef]

Not got time for this right now, but will recommend Sicko, a Michael Moore film about US health care. I love having this arguemet with my one American Republican friend.

[Mick Mac]

However I'm as interested in the breeding grounds for such flagrant nonsense

I think the NHS in the way we know it today is not sustainable. Rising population and increased life expectancy will mean more people to treat and an unacceptable burden on the taxpayer. To me this seems to be clear. The NHS may have to draw the line in more and more cases such as elderly patients with life threatening illnesses, where quality of life cannot be sustained.

Its not an ideal world and while we would all like a perfect NHS for everyone, someone has to pay. When healthy successful people are faced with the choice of paying 50% tax or more every month to fund an NHS that they may never use, they will not be happy. This is one of the reasons the Torys may well win the next election and I believe they will increase cuts in the NHS. Many of their voters will be unaffected or perceive themselves to be unaffected as they have health insurance. Those who will suffer will be those who need the NHS most.

In the US Obama is safe for his Presidency and US republicans, in general the wealthier side of society, have health insurance and their "I'm alright Jack" attitude will mean they do not want to pay additional taxes to support a health service for the poorer people in society.

They are aware of his plans and want to create a poor image of the UK NHS to create hysteria and a poorly informed objection to the proposed plans.

Those who work in the NHS should not take any of this US abuse personally - its their issue to resolve.

What I do find surprising is that after so many years of people saying the UK would perhaps move to a more US style healthcare model, its seems ironic that it is they who are instead moving towards our style of NHS.

[macroban]

I smell the whiff of euthanasia around here.

All I want from the NHS is a working morphine driver and a sufficient supply of diamorphine.

[buggie]

.... have consulted my solicitor and the NHS could well have a case for slander!!

[SeanMacGabhann]

some fair points Mick, but the question isn't "what shape will the NHS take in the future?" it's why is the very notion of a paid-for health service, "evil and orwellian" and how does the very concept threaten to derail the presidency

Given that everyone complaining about "73 year old men being left to die" in the US is already paying massive private health premiums, and that life expectancy is lower in the US anyway, can someone explain to me what their beef is?

[Mick Mac]

i answered the question of what is the breeding ground for this nonsense.

To answer your more more direct question. People in the us see people in the uk pay 1 high taxes for the nhs and 2 private health insurance. In the us they currently pay high insurance for their personal healthcare and dont want to pay on top of that additional taxes for a health service for all.

[SeanMacGabhann]

My understanding is the average US employee pays slightly higher taxes than his/her UK counterpart

- so why aren't they looking at the UK and asking "why can't we have something like that here?"

or ask another question - what do opponents of Obama's proposals suggest unemployed/non-profitable/badly paid citizens do for healthcare?

Pr repeat the question again - where do people get off calling it "evil and Orwellian"

[Mick Mac]

I don't think its in dispute that for the US to create an NHS would cost extra money and extra taxes would be required to pay for it (irrespective of how much tax they are paying currently).

In order to avoid having to pick up the tab on this project the US right wing tries to devalue the UK NHS to the extent that the proposals will be dropped amid public anger at the extra cost.

With a large religious population in the US then picking isolated examples of people being "allowed to die" and thus calling it "evil" adds impact to their argument and helps to win over the religious elements in society, especially if this opinion is voiced by those in religious positions of authority.

[SeanMacGabhann]

But if the NHS in the UK could be created on the back of a financially crippling war, surely it can be done in the US?

Noone is denying it will cost money, but given the trillions thrown at the "wealth creators", not to mention the various wars on the go, we know that money exists

And if, as is forecast, many Americans will lose their jobs in the coming years, having a free-at-source medical resource would be money well spent for them surely?

[Mick Mac]

Yes I agree with all of that Sean.

I guess they just feel that it will be a real cost to them in the future and they want to avoid creating this additional demand on resources.

We are not disagreeing I'm just trying to think, like you, of why some people in the US have taken the stance that they have.

[matthew123]

As a few have suggested, why don't the NHS / NHS Trusts sue these damn advertisers in America - as surely McDonald's et al wouldn't think twice if they were being slandered in the UK. Or even better why don't the NHS put out an 'advert' on Youtube comparing treatment in the UK with those that haven't got a bean living in the USA..

You can't imagine the French authorities letting it pass if it was them being kicked about like a political football so why should we!?

[mockney piers]

I get the feeling sean, that the reason the debate isn't being conducted in the rational terms you describe is actually the goal of the health insurance industry lobby and pressure groups in cahoots with facets of the republican party.

It's not unfamiliar to us, TLS uses the same tactics in order to keep the frame of a debate away from the real issues and exactly where he/they want it.

Hence the cost of health care versus the real tax burden isn't being discussed nationally across the political dvide, it's the poor rubes who stand to benefit who are holding up their birth certificates demanding why abforeign Muslim is their president.

I'm off to set up a medical ward in my log cabin and I'll be shooting at any UN black helicopters who try to take my private healthcare away from me dagnammit!!

[SeanMacGabhann]

Agreed Piers on the reasons, but why so large a believing audience

I guess this touches on other debates we have had about why people are so willing to "believe" things instead of looking at what works but it's profoundly depressing

[mockney piers]

American politics got reduced to soundbites about twenty years ago. Picking apart complex issues bores people in short.

Easier to scream about the evils of big government.

[SeanMacGabhann]

was how I read that...

Anyway, back on topic - this column in today's Guardian

here

makes some interesting points (not all of which I agree with) and points to the sort of debate which should be happening

[chantelle]

in a nutshell, it's insurers, doctors and pharmaceutical companies who are terrified of being held to account for creating and fostering an enormously overinflated and costly healthcare system.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Hey chantelle - good to see more people join the conversation

There is truth in what you say, but it still doesn't explain why ordinary citizens have taken to standing outside Obama's meetings with loaded guns, suggesting it's time for some blood to flow.

Evil Megacorp can do many things but I doubt they are forcing loons like this to behave in this way

[mockney piers]

Health care is the battle line that's been drawn, but it's nothing to do with the war which is about the kind of society the US will be and the direction it's moving to.

The election was a particularly divisive one because the stakes were so high on this. The Christian right have lost that election but they're keen not to allow the US to move towards the European model of social democracy or godless communism sleepwalking into destruction by the Muslim demographic timebomb, as they like to call it.

It's not really about health at all and I can guarantee you it's not about being rational.

That's the problem for the centrist progressives, it's not soundbitey, it's not sexy. Even the vast majority of those on the right are rational, if chagrined and disturbed at the changes Obama wants to bring about, but it's much easier to have an impact and make a noise when you're a nutter shouting down a senator or a right wing shock jock or, heaven forbid, Ann Coulter.