In the News Let's Attack the Brits' NHS!

August 18, 2009

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.

80 Comments

COMMENTS

We need more programs like this to educate the American public.

Leon

Leon Jaferian / August 18, 2009 1:08 PM

Unfortunately, Leon, the American public does not want to be educated. Instead, they want to make a stand on principles like the free market, or the evils of the government (yes, that evil govt that supplies them with the infrastucture to make money in the free market), or their religiosity. That renders them sanctimonious.

A fine example of this is the fella in PA who harangued Senator Spector with the idea that he (the senator) would have to face the judgement of god some day. I guess that guy feels pretty strongly that god is on his side, and that makes him feel good. Irrational, yes, but that is at the core of it; another fine side of religion.

Dan / August 18, 2009 2:26 PM

I agree with you both. We have seen, all too often, the debate on health care overrun by a small, boisterous few. Sadly, their loud opposition has drowned out those of us calling for reform. Programs like this do a great service by informing an otherwise ill-informed American public.

Nick / August 18, 2009 7:49 PM

It is too bad most people believe the propaganda they are fed here in the US and being bred on fear they are completely confused. Why not believe government is bad? Isn't that like Big Brother? But what "they" do not see is how well run the government systems have been compared to private corporations who are slowly or not so slowly bleeding us to death. As far as taxes go we pay very high taxes when you combine all them. During the course of a day we'll pay a gas tax, food tax, meals tax, tolls, tax on goods, and so on. As for Socialism, I am amazed at how ignorant people are about Socialism as if it is Communism. We, the few who are informed, who have traveled or lived abroad and have seen how other countries work and how sheltered this country is need to educate the ignorant.

Ellen / August 18, 2009 10:02 PM

those idiots yelling at the top of their lungs at the town hall meetings are making themselves and the rest of us look terrible. people need to step back and look at the facts and decide for themselves, dont leave it up to msnbc or fox news to do the thinking for them.

mike / August 18, 2009 11:32 PM

I agree with all that has been said in the comments above. Americans in general are quick to point out what we consider flaws or weakness's in a different approach or different method. But sometimes we are most blind to our own mistakes. I think that we need to be more open minded in general to new approaches, especially when our own process has so many well documented problems of its own.

Colby / August 19, 2009 3:12 AM

Perhaps we weren't watching the same report. The NHS in Great Britain is not all roses. The people are required to pay what many here would consider excessive taxes to get taken care of by their government. And Britain is not alone in requiring their citizens to give up a huge amount of their paycheck. The British government employs 1.4 million people to administer the NHS programs,making the NHS the third largest employer on the planet. Governments are inefficient monsters that consume money, and if you think the US government can deliver on any of the promises they make you are sadly mistaken. Medicare, Medicaid, IHS, the VA system, and Social Security have all ended up costing multiple times more than they were projected to, so what is the solution? Create an even larger national healthcare system? Wake up!
Do you really think we can cover 40 million uninsured people and it won't increase the deficit? What happens in ten years when the talking heads tell us how much more expensive this is than they thought? Do we scrap the program? No, they'll come up with a bigger and better one.

Great Britain has 60 million people. We have over 5 times that many, and according to the last election 53% of our population wants to be taken care of by the government. That shouldn't cost much. I hope we don't lose all our rich people.

Neil / August 19, 2009 7:32 AM

This is all fine and dandy but how much are you willing to pay for it in taxes? 40 or 50 percent rate? Or do you expect the rich to foot the bill?

Hilda / August 19, 2009 10:36 AM

We're already paying for the uninsured, just in a very inefficient way, since those uninsured receive care in the most expensive way, through the emergency rooms, and at the worst and most expensive time, when they are already experiencing a health catastrophe that is more expensive to treat. The U.S. spends nearly twice as much of its GDP on health care per capita than the next most expensive country (Canada), at about 16% of GDP compared to 9%, yet we have the 37th best health outcomes, right behind Costa Rica, as I recall.

Why do we spend so much for so little? Part of it could be doctors dealing with literally dozens, even hundreds of insurers to administer their practices, as you can see from how many support staff work in the typical doctor's office relative to the number of physicians. Part of it could be the profit allowed to big insurance companies starting back in the 1980's (prior to that they were not allowed to be for profit businesses). Part of it could be salaries, like the CEO of UHC who made more than $12 million last year, a level of compensation that no government employee, including the President, even approaches. Part of it could be the near monopoly in most areas of the country with one company leading prices and no effective competition to control prices. We know that Medicare's overhead (and that's a single payer system) runs about 3% of expenses, while private insurers have overhead levels ranging between 12% (Kaiser) to 25% of expenses, and that must be part of what we resolve, so we get health care, not bureaucracy, for our health care dollar.

There is no question we need to reform our absurd and cruel way of rationing health care in this country, the question is what form that reform should take. We can argue some areas, but it's time to grow up and face facts so we can craft a solution that will be best for all of us. Misinformation and ignorance of the fact pattern involved only serves to obstruct the process, and is a disservice to us all.

Chris / August 19, 2009 12:33 PM

There is no way we are going to get out of paying a high percentage of taxes for this type of healthcare system. But as a small business owner, I would rather know that the money is going to healthcare for the nation instead of to these private insurers who absolutely squeeze guys like me.

In North Carolina, there was a maximum that your premiums could go up and they hit that every year the last eight years to the tune of 22%. Combined with inflation that is coming, you are going in the hole every day. I personally do not feel that doctors should be business people. They are trained in medicine and I am trained in business. My friend's who are physicians say they would welcome a single payer system (even the specialists).

I think the advertisers on the major networks are influencing the programs and keeping us all in fear on something that should be a basic human right. Oh yes and by the way I am a registered Republican. There are more Republicans that are in favor of this than what the media is letting on. There are more Republican Senators that if told that they were not going to have the federal plan, would not be insured due to pre-existing conditions. They are living in a different world than the rest of us and the only thing I am hearing is problems with what the President is proposing and no solutions from the opponents.

If you ask any Veteran, they are so thankful for the VA which is a government run program. Why can't the rest of us have this type of piece of mind? It should be a payroll tax deduction just like Medicare and make any immigrant moving here have to pay into the system as soon as they start working in the US workforce. What would be wrong with that?

Nate / August 19, 2009 8:48 PM

Sounds good from the report, but UK citizens pay up to 23% of their income into their national healthcare system. That is on top of the traditional income taxes that they pay. They pay dearly for having their system, our population is bigger and we would pay dearly if this system was instituted in the US. After it is all said and done, some Americans could end up with tax rates over 60% easy. We can't afford it.

US Congress should look at creating federal clinics to service the needs of the low-income/uninsured. Then make sure that the illegal immigrants will not have access to the plan.

Although the UK has the primary side well covered, we succeed in having the elective surgery side well covered. The report mentioned that.

I believe, the US needs to repair its system, not throw all of it out the door for something new.

Romney care in Massachusetts is in financial trouble and rationing/waiting lists are occurring, what makes us think if we apply Obama care to 303 billion people that it will work.

Randy / August 19, 2009 10:58 PM

I watched Tommy Thompson (A Bush admin HHS director) debate Elizabeth Edwards on Larry King. He said that if we just give everyone a 5,000.00 tax cut that we can cover everyone. When told by Mrs. Edwards that 5,000.00 would not cover a family and that family plans cost around 15,000.00 per year, he stated that she had her facts wrong and that insurance policies cost 5,000.00 per year. She just shook her head and laughed.

How can we have rational conversations with people who don't know or outright distort the facts. Thompson was HHS director under Bush and is so far removed from reality that he doesn't even know what insurance costs. Republicans are distorters of the truth in order to protect the insurance industry that's lining their pockets.

Obama has the majority and must push this through with or without Republican or Blue Dog Democratic support. These people are there to prevent reform and must be pushed out of the way. I can't believe these "teabaggers" that are willing to vote against their own interests because of some ideological fantasy. Many of them are complaining about government run healthcare while at the same time are on Medicare.

Like Barney Frank said to a woman in my town of Dartmouth, MA last night, "Having a conversation with you is like talking to the dining room table." These people are idiots.

Fred / August 19, 2009 11:20 PM

I am a Canadian. All I can say is thank God for the Government Health Care systems in most advanced countries in the world. You Americans have had the wool pulled over your eyes by the Insurance companies and HMO's. If you are spending roughly 16% of your GDP on health care and Canada is spending under 10% on its health care, do you not think you could design the "Best single payer system in the world that treats everyone with the best care possible, and you would still receive immediate savings of at least 4% of your GDP. Keep arguing and maybe some of the 40 million uninsured can travel to the rich country of Cuba to be treated. The rest of the world watches in amazement as the U.S.struggles to find the right answer to this question. Good Luck.

Don / August 20, 2009 6:29 PM

Don- As a US citizen I couldn't agree with you more. This debate and the scare tactics and misinformation is frustrating.

Our family chooses not to buy medical insurance because medical insurance does not translate into quality healthcare.

I have been saying for awhile now that our system needs to be not-for-profit but it falls on deaf ears.

Apple_Fritter / August 20, 2009 10:54 PM

I don't understand, many of the arguments are if we have a nationalize health system, we will bankrupt our country. Let's look at this very simple scenario. Let's just assume that we nationalized all Health insurance companies and let them continue making profits and continue their practices with no changes except that the profits goes to a pool that will be used to pay for all uninsured people. After that if there are any money left over, that money automatically goes into reducing next year's premium. Now, nothing has changed and now everybody is covered. Would that still bankrupt us?

Tony / August 20, 2009 11:43 PM

I was in the dark about health care costs until I was diagnosed with 2 life-threatening cancers. Now my insurance is a literal life saver--there is no way that I could pay for the treatment I have received without good insurance. BUT... It is quite obvious that the system we have in the USA has some major holes, which are not remedied because of the insurance and pharma lobbies. It is obvious to me now that the lobbies need to be reined in, and the decisions made by congress are aimed to support the public, and not the big donating companies that are basicly buying our congressmen. The reality of the legal political power afforded to lobbies makes me sick, and that really erodes my trust and belief in our country's goodness. Shouldn't we be at a crossroad now?

Kim / August 21, 2009 1:39 AM

I live in France with a pretty good national health care system that takes care of nearly everyone. Taxes pay for part and mutual insurance for the rest. Each person contributes according to his means and then some. As for the UK (where I originate from), the NHS was savaged by Mrs Thatcher (in some areas rightly I do think, even though I did not vote for her).
What all countries need is the better up-front prevention (state based), like eating better & more exercise. The UK and Europe are getting fatter and more and more unhealthy (sounds like something you've heard already). Preventing diseases, heart problems etc. before they happen saves lives, saves money in the long term even if it looks expensive now.

Chris / August 21, 2009 12:11 PM

I can't believe some of the comments I read on here by the "whining" rich. If you don't want to pay for universal healthcare then let the low income and quickly evaporating middle-class charge exhorbitant rates to serve in the military or firefighters charge hundreds of thousands to run headlong into a fire to save your rears.I, for one, am sick of the crybaby upper-class in this country, Do you people even know the percentage of lower-class individuals in the armed forces compared to the upper class? You should be ashamed of yourselves. As for the people that say government can't run anything, how about the military, social security, medicare, highway infrastructure, and on and on. You "whiners" just don't want a public option to reveal that the Empiror (private insurance)has no clothes...Four members of my immediate family serve in the military, including myself, but no more if I can help it. We're sick and tired of defending you cowards who can't even provide healthcare to our fellow citizens.

Jonathan Lewis / August 23, 2009 5:44 PM

Hi! everyone.
I am a international student who were from Korea a few days ago. The first thing that made me surprised was a high medical cost. I and my family member had to pay for $4500 to purchase university student health insurance. Even if I paid much money, the coverage was very limited. That was terrible thing. Korea has a very excellent public health insurance. My family paid for at most $1000 a year. We could go to hospital very frequently whenever we felt bad. The money that I paid for to see a doctor was $ 3 under public health care system. Korean can get all medical operations at the low price of less $1000. The other advantage of our medical insurance is that no hospital can refuse to treat the patient. All patients can use the excellent hospitals with best facilities and doctors under our health care system. Most of Korean are getting a lot of medical benefits with less cost. I think that the United State must reform its health care system. The bottom line of these reforms is to implement public medical plan cheaply. I know that many American is afraid of tax increase because of public health insurance.
However, many other countries are reducing their taxes by means of abolishing or cutting in efficent public programs. Please hurry up to reform your system. While you are hesitating, your poor people may be dying without medical assistance.

Youngmin Oh. / August 24, 2009 9:07 AM

I have not wanted a NHCP specifically for tax reasons. However we do need to make changes to the cost of health care. Most of these health care plans speak of having a paying the doctors a salary, as in most of the cities or towns and hospitals that Obama has decided to speak at. Holland and Switzerland have excellent examples of health care, alot of government oversight and regulation, but good. Alot of pro-NHS responders forget medical health is paid for by increasing national taxes, which in most cases are more than double what I pay now.
I fear we will take health care to a point where the democrats took welfare in the 1970's and make it too easy to get in without paying. I donated to a fund for mosquitto nets in africa (a good example of Obama's thought process see: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104803094) which were never given away because the nets were then sold by the villagers. Instead they were sold to the villagers for about a dollar (2 wks pay). The villagers would be more apt to take care of them.
We have alot going against us here in the US. Wellness education, fitness, and general attitude of entitilement are amoung the worst. We do need to fix health care costs, but a NHCP is not the only answer.

Ed Alonzo / August 24, 2009 11:26 PM

I lived in both the US and the UK while working for a large US law firm and was lucky to have a comfortable private insurance provided for by my employer in both countries -- and was never sick. There is no such thing as a perfect healthcare system, there are only choices to be made among imperfect systems. European-style systems seem to provide cover wider coverage for the whole population without a large percentage of the population falling through the cracks. But will the U.S. ever compare itself to any other country, much less concede that the other country has a superior system? And what's wrong with a bit more government? Isn't the situation we are in today the result of a lack of government (i.e., regulation and enforcement) in the U.S., and isn't the unfashionable government now the last resort for pretty much all ills?

Carole Wintersdorff / August 25, 2009 12:21 PM

Hi everyone, I'm a Brit who is lucky enough to have the NHS.. I'm not sure where Randy got his figures from.. but I can tell you from my monthly pay this month 5% went to the NHS and then I pay 7% income tax ( as I work part time and I live alone )so those hugely inflated figures you quote are not the reality at all ! our NHS isn't perfect and yes Maggie Thatcher messed around with it alot but from a personal point of view ?it is a wonderful service, one that I have used over the years,the birth of my son 30 yrs ago,I had to have an emergency ceasarian, the surgeons and all the staff looked after me so so well. Just 2 months ago I had a kidney stone, I was in the most awful pain so I called an ambulance and they arrived within 5 minutes and diagnosed what was wrong and took me straight down to our local hospital where I was dealt with immediately the young doctor who treated me was younger than my son but such a sweetheart,he took the time to explain what treatment I would need and gave me the choice of staying in overnight or going home with medication which I did and luckily I passed the stone that night, so please please do not listen to all the scare mongering about our NHS, we love it ! and I think if ever our government of the day ever tried to turn it into a privately run business there would be riots over here ! If I do have one grumble about it, it is this, we have a huge immigration problem in our country right now and this is causing a strain on resources, I'd like to finish by saying this.. our doctors and nurses are so dedicated and work for little pay and we think they are wonderful, God Bless the NHS !!

Chrissy Soden / August 25, 2009 5:41 PM

Let government compete with private on healthcare system. Have both and let the people choose.
It is amazing that those who are against national healthcare are for national military, police and etc. They argue "why should I pay for somebody else's healthcare". Well, then the answer is: Why should somebody who you don't care about their healthcare be concerned about your security?

sal / August 25, 2009 8:10 PM

I live In Halifax in Nova Scotia. Let me tell you about our Health care system. Lets look at the myth that nobody goes bankrupt in our system. Well they wont go bankrupt from paying for treatment, they will be given pain killers to ease the pain while they wait 6 months for a MRI, then the other 6-12 while the wait for treatment. Many good honest hard working people have been turned into drug addicts by our government effectively. Lives destroyed and the reason all but ignored.

If they don't get addicted they may also not be able to work are require social assistance. Basically being unhealthy and waiting for treatment is far costlier to the overall quality of your life.
Most drugs are not covered and new life saving ones certainty are not.
Some procedures require you live away from your home job and family for extended periods. Factor in the waits and you have a bankrupting situation there.

The biggest point is that Canadians bitch and Moan about our health care system all the time, until the moment they think Americans are watching, then we change our tune..trust me on this.

If it wasn't for the USA life saving procedures and drugs would not exist and these systems that cheery pick the treatments they want with few of the cost would be on tough times for sure.

Colin / August 25, 2009 8:26 PM

Colin is right. You can always tell when somebody is pretending to be Canadian and telling their fellow Americans how great our health system is. Its really arrogant to listen to "enlightened" Americans and Americans pretending to be Canadians (Don) for them to believe that their government can
A. Cut costs
B. Cover an additional 40 million people
C. And give the same quality of care

Its not going to happen, use your heads. Cuba doesn't provide its citizens with free health care that's an absolute joke. I feel bad that so many Americans are so desperate to believe the most childish notions with regards to government run health care. One last thing Colin is dead on about us Canadians complaining about our health care until Americans might be listening. If you American progressives ever want to get elected again do not pass a bill containg a co-op or public option... There is a reason the NDP doesn't get elected here nationally.

Evan / August 25, 2009 10:51 PM

Every place I ever worked at that provided health care plan reqiured the employees to pay part of the premium and the employer pay part of the premium. So if one can cut cost in half per patient by cutting out the middleman and all the people the hospitals and doctors need to comply with the insurers rules and to submit all the paperwork. Then a tax to pay for national insurance should actualy be less them we pay now. Plus there would be no deductables and other cost like the insurer pays 80% or less.

Some states have tried a public option type plan and it has not worked out because they still had the cost created by the middleman/insurers. So only plan that has proven to work and cut cost is a single payer plan, any other will fail. Over 16,000 Doctors are for a single payer plan.

Unfortunatly our polititions are used to selling their asses like common whores to the lobbyist/big business and thats why a single payer plan is not on the table.

Insurers have paid out over a half a billion bucks so far to insure there is no to little compitition from the goverment..that right there should show you how much we could be saving on healthcare if we would just cut out the middleman, like the other nations have with their national plans.

Terry / August 26, 2009 1:37 AM

Could we just compare the cost of a private (for profit) army with our Armed Forces? If we look for the best medical care it would be the one the governmet runs for Congress and other top officials. Those representatives who decry the government's ability to run health care should immediately join the for profit insurance group and get out of that "rotten government run" goldplated plan they now have. Why can the government run the best army in the world and not be able to cover all of our citizens? We seem to have a sad phobia about recognizing that while this is one of the best places to live, we do have some problems. Lose your job, lose your medical is not an option.

Warren Neal / August 26, 2009 2:25 AM

I need to correct some facts about the taxes in the UK and the NHS. I am british and i would not give up the NHS for nothing. We pay 22% of our income as income tax not for our healthcare system. I earn £95,000 a year and i pay £4,7000 as tax for my NHS. The beauty of the NHS is that anyone under 16,over the age of 65, disabled and pregnant women gets their prescriptions free of charge. So i am quite happy with what i am paying. As for the waiting list being blown out of propotion, this only applies to non-life threatning operations. We still have private healthcare but this is used as backup and in most cases it is free(most employers use it as benefits for their staffs). Even the millioniares in the UK still use the NHS.

Olu / August 26, 2009 9:54 AM

I live in Canada and need a major knee reconstruction which will take place in a few months(I can walk and it is a progressive sports injury). I am fully employed and have insurance, however, I am glad to say this operation will cost me nothing.

When I say nothing I mean in terms of upfront costs. Taxes pay for our health system. Ask any Canadian (not ones your health insurance companies pay to say otherwise) we would not think of the US method of healthcare.
This operation would cost $50,000 in the US. Although I am employed I could never afford this and I would be excluded from insurance ( in the US)because I have had knee surgery before.

I am sad that this is even a "debate" in your country. Universal healthcare is more important than you can imagine. I am sorry that the misinformation about it is so prevasive. I hope that Americans will do the research themselves and not look to the mainstream media for information.

Nadine Kellman / August 26, 2009 2:40 PM

I am an American who has lived in the UK for several years. I have first hand experience of both systems. I love the NHS and would never willing go back to the USA health system. The amount I pay for the NHS is less than what I paid for insurance in the USA. (As a person with a family history of cancer)
The NHS is not perfect, however knowing that I will never have to make the choice between my house, food vs medical care for my family is worth it.

The preventive care in the UK is wonderful. As a person who is at risk for cancer, I get reminder letters to make appointments for regular scans and check-ups so to ensure that if anything does develop, it's found early so treatment is more effective and less painful. That never happened in the USA.

Naomi Wolf / August 26, 2009 3:17 PM

Nadine I do not know what you are talking about when you say Canadians would rather not have the USA system I dare you to walk into a local clinic and record peoples reactions Steven Crowder did it and it certainly isn't what your describing. I am sorry but Canadians do not need USA health insurance companies to pay them to complain about their health care. My Girlfriend had ACL surgery and it took over 3 years to go from her initial injury to her surgery. As for the cost, I'm sorry an additional 10% sales tax is certainly expensive and much more costly then a 300 dollar a month family health insurance plan. Just because it is taken out of our Gas/ groceries and everything else we buy or use in small increments doesn't mean it doesn't cost less. Americans the world can't afford your health care plan and neither can you. I'm sorry don't listen to socialists saying they loved their Health care systems, because the average person has very difficult and stressful and expensive experiences with socialized medicine, especially in Canada. I live in Canada My aunt in head of the doctors association, my mothers a Pharmacists, the horror stories you will hear.....

Colin / August 26, 2009 5:52 PM

Hey, there is no perfect healtcare system, but all I know is that our system here in the U.S. needs a major facelift. My mom and dad have been dealing with this wack healthcare system for years because their diabetic. I mean there is a major disadvantage for being uninsured such as: paying more for prescriptions, tests, doctor visits and emergency room bills. This system has literally bankrupted my family. You know how much my dad's leg amputation cost? Over 100,000 dollars. We couldn't even pay for physical therapy afterwards because the visits were too expensive. We are barely scrimping by. Thank goodness my dad qualifies for Medicare next month at least he won't have these major bills to pay. Even though Medicare is not perfect, but at least its something. Being uninsured just plain sucks.

Eduardo / August 26, 2009 8:29 PM

Good video. NHS isnt perfect, but you will get treatment and you wont go bankrupt.
I am from Britain living in the USA The NHS is paid for by a NI tax which is about 10-11%, roughly the same social security tax in the US when you include the employers contribution. The NI tax, like social security, also pays for state pensions, widows, disability pensions. It may employee 1.4 million people, but i imagine , relatively speaking that is a fraction of the workforce involved in the US health care system when you include providers,insurance company employees and of course lawyers.

george / August 27, 2009 12:32 AM

I'm sorry I am Canadian and in August 2006 My wife's Aunt was hospitalized for skin cancer that had been growing on her face. Let me be very frank, They starved her and then over dosed her on Morphine to open a much needed bed. This happens all the time in Canada. I really don't think you Americans understand what your in for with a public health care system. Treatment is defiantly not guaranteed, when you life is in the balance you are forced to wait for months just to see a specialist, then your treatment begins months later. Many people die because they couldn't get treatment for almost a year and they had very aggressive cancers or other problems. America YOU ARE NOT I repeat NOT going to be able to increase coverage for 40 million people and provided the same quality or Care. Its going to spiral outta control and your country is going to go bankrupt. They say it will cost 1 trillion, It can easily cost 10 times that. we had a 3 million dollar gun registry here in Canada that cost us a billion dollars.

David / August 27, 2009 8:21 AM

I'm sorry,but I find it a little suspicious when I read some of the input supposedly from Canada. Like David's 8-27-09 at 8:21. This sound like a story that was produced right out of the anti-reformer's scare tactic handbook they been using so successfully,waiting lists,people dying,etc. For good measure at the end he conveniently puts in that somewhat out of place comment about Canadian gun control cost overruns. (That will really stir up anxiety levels of the socialist conspirators) I can't help but to believe this "Canadian" is sending email from a corporate office somewhere in the good old U.S.A. The insurance cartels are powerful and well funded and I put nothing past them. What's next? Maybe some excerpts from Soylent Green.

Larry / August 27, 2009 3:18 PM

I am an american living in Germany, which has a state-sponsered system, which is totally different than Canada and Britain's. The amount taken out of your check is running around 15%, also slightly higher than that of the US, but the service is just as good as in America. We pay also 10% of the cost of medicines. Everything else is covered.

Furthermore, it is very rare that someone goes broke here because of health care and no one has to wait 3 months for an operation.

Yes, if you look into the system, you will find some shortcomings, but they are subtle in comparison to the massive problems in the US.

The concentration on the Brits and Canadians misleads the public on how the system can be fixed. Canada and Britain's systems are considered some of the worst of its kind (but not terrible). One could look to Germany, Denmark, Holland or a number of other systems to find better examples of how to set up our system.

norman / August 28, 2009 6:03 AM

I wish some of those against universal health care would come over here to germany and have to explain to someone why they are against it. It is a humbling experience. I have tried to explain this a number of times and have felt stupid and ashamed everytime I try, because it really makes no sense.

The Germans are following our debate through German newspapers and news shows.

norman / August 28, 2009 6:18 AM

Larry I would respectfully ask that you do not claim I am lying about the unfortunate situation with my wife's and ours loved ones. Its very tactless and shows little class. Our unfortunate situation is a lot more common then you would think. For the record there certainly is no "Death Panels", there are just stressed out,over worked doctors and nurses who consistently have to chose between two bad options. If your Media was doing its JOB you would know that our government considers the state of our health care a crisis, even the NDP is willing to compromise for more privatized options. Here are some quotes from Dr Dr. Anne Doig at a Federal high cabinet meeting In Saskatchewan.

“We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,” Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

“We know that there must be change,” she said. “We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.”

Larry, I am sitting in my Office in Bedford Nova Scotia, Its sunny this morning and I am going bass fishing tonight. I can assure you, I am who I say I am. I'm a Card carrying Member of the Canadian Liberal Party as well. Larry I didn't vote for Harper, I voted for Dion. You do not have a clue what your talking about.

David / August 28, 2009 9:00 AM

To clarify:

Dr Anne Doig is the newly elected head of the Canadian Medical Association, sort of a union for Doctors. Her comments were made at their Annual Meeting, not a "Federal high cabinet meeting". In any case doctors in Canada, as in the U.S,. have an agenda of their own in any discussion of healthcare so be wary when they offer their plan to "fix" the system; ultimately it may be skewed to whatever works best for them. All I'm saying is that all of the players in the system will try and advocate for whatever works most to their benefit, including doctors.

John L / August 28, 2009 6:37 PM

One issue we have in Canada, as in other countries, is that discussion on issues involving healthcare tends to be dominated by folks on either extreme of the debate; some argue for an American-style system and others insist that any variation or change in what exists currently is a "slippery slope" and no change should be accepted. I think that the ultimate answer should be to shop the systems other countries use and cherrypick the best features of each. As in the U.S. the media tend to put far more emphasis on the extreme cases, and extremists, than on the folks who are making a compelling case.

John L / August 28, 2009 7:41 PM

Ah, America, where the ignorant are headlining the network news most of the time. Mostly because they are the loudest and must be angry about SOMETHING all the time. What is everyone so afraid of? Change? This argument has been going on for decades, and the solution is still the same. Nationalize it. Of couse, our elected officials are bought and paid for by the very industry that has destroyed more lives than it has saved (Insurance), and the fearful, malinformed moral minority are still the squeakiest wheel. What has happened to our desire as a society to be the best in the world? I have writted to my senator(Patty Murray) twice in the last month about this, and keep getting the same wishy-washy form letter in response. Where is the fire for positive change that mpved this nation into the computer age? The one that electrified all our cities and gave us flushing toilets?

Loree Byers / August 28, 2009 11:14 PM

What is wrong with those americans that buy all those scary dog stories from such ridiculous sources like former governor Palin? This is so sad, we are supposed to be such a first world power and we only show how stupid we are. It is time to force this down and stop any bipartisan deal. The republicans have shown enough their colors with their last war; we did vote them out! So let's go and do what we voted for, darn it!

jeanne / August 28, 2009 11:18 PM

Thanks for challenging myth to of US medical superiority. Profiting fro health care is like profiting from war and imprisonment. I've had medical care in 4 different counties, US, Korea, Thailand and Sweden. The worst quality,least advanced, most stressful, and most costly was the US. Considering that 2 of those countries are still * developing nation, change has to come. The US has to quit making profits from human misery, be it from health care, the penal system or a mercenary military.

Charmin / August 29, 2009 11:13 AM

Look guys its very easy to demonized the left or right and not take any responsibilities on how to reach an agreement. The left says the idiots on the town halls are bunch of religious nuts and right says the ones that want health care reform are bunch of communist.

Please STOP. STOP, STOP, STOP.

We do have a problem with health care because it is very expensive and we need to solve it. This is not a problem of right or the left. Health care in the US is very very very expensive PERIOD.

We need to put ideas on how to solve it. Would a gov't solution really solve it? I doubt it look at social security. Would a free market solution really solve it? I doubt it look at GM.

What I want to see is a really politician who aside party affiliation. What I want to see is an America who does not fall for nonsense of the extreme right or the extreme left.

Omar / August 30, 2009 12:39 AM

As a tax lawyer, i would like to place my bid for the "true cost of the NHS" to the taxpayer.

The true cost is hidden, and with good reason. It would make a lot of people sick.

There are quite a few people here who have suggested that they pay only 5% of their wage as a special NHS tax. And that is well said. What these people do not understand, however, is that their employer pays another 13% of their wage as a specific NHS tax. (more or less)

So whilst the worker may suppose the cost of their health care is 5% of their wage, in fact it is closer to 20%.

Now I have used the NHS, and I have had VERY bad experiences. I was referred from one doctor to another, four times, just to get some basic antibiotics for a stomach infection. I knew what I needed. So did they, but they sent me from one doctor to the next, because each time they did so their buddy was able to charge the taxpayer another £250. In the end, I got so mad I told the third doctor that I knew what the game was. He just smiled at me, and referred me to another doctor. I flew to Switzerland and got truly excellent health care, and I paid for it with cash.

I now use the Swiss health care system. It is amazing. Really, really excellent. As a swiss resident, I pay 200 francs a month for total health insurance. Everyone in the country has total health insurance. the government does not provide health care, but only regulates the law. The law says everyone must have health insurance, and that the health care must be of certain objective standards. So the government regulate that law. they make sure every has insurance, and they make sure the hospitals and doctors are up to standard.

In england, the problem seems to be that doctors are hired by the government. That is just a disaster. Governments should regulate the market, not replace it.

And that is why the swiss system is so very good. Government don't care, they regulate. If you haven't paid, they make you pay. If you don't provide the quality of service, they shut you down, and some other medical provider gets your market share.

So in this way, the Swiss achieve universal health care AND high standards due to market forces. the trick, it seems, is to have a government that only regulates and which does not provide services, and to have direct democracy.

You see, the Swiss need direct democracy to stop insurance companies and drug companies from taking control of their political system and corrupting it totally. There is no point in large drug companies and insurance companies passing shocking laws to enrich themselves, because the swiss will just force a referendum and repeal the law.

It is a strange country. They have real, actual democracy. Not glorious western democracy where you vote for a party member to "represent you". But actual, real, you vote to make law democracy. People here vote on the law, and public initiatives can force votes. Thus corporations can fund politicians if they want, but it is a bad trade, because even if their pet politician gets into office, his pet laws will be struck down by the people within months. So they don't.

Switzerland is so rich, as a result of this real democracy, that they have been accused of neglecting their medical universities. They argue that their wages for doctors are so high, they don't need to train their own. They just get doctors from other countries. Being Swiss, they would rather not spend their taxes on training doctors when they can save that money and have very low taxes. So they have government which regulates, and they let the market do the heavy lifting.

It is worth considering, as a hypothetical. If we had real democracy in the English speaking world, maybe we could have a real health care system?

cynik / August 30, 2009 2:05 AM

I wonder if they were really treating the ugly American in England. This is just one example. Surely we can create and regulate something better. I do not mind paying cash as I do now. I have more control over what I am charged and what services are performed. Prices just need to go down more by way of supply and demand. Doctors are also good at referring here. Our employers also pay half of our social security. Should that be stopped?

For some time now corporations have practiced buying their competitors and then making them go under. The last large competitor is the government. They are working on that now since many government run entities are now in the hands private companies. Government run healthcare is another competitor to rid themselves.

We do not need to be under the thumbs of another special interest group for another four or eight years. We are experiencing damage from favoring special interest oil groups. With that came war in order to take the oil. Now will it be a special interest groups that profits from illness. With that comes high drug and other high healthcare costs that will further aid the medical and financial downfall of this country. We already have to borrow from China what is basically was our own money we gave them. Special interest groups wanted to outsource. The only special interest is our country, America, not corporations and their stockholders.

E Walker / August 30, 2009 4:10 PM

More programs like this need to be aired just to better inform the American public about "socialized medicine".

Eric / September 3, 2009 12:20 AM

As a Swedish citizen i think American debate about healt care is amazing. As for "socialist sweden" we have a survival rate for children with cancer that beats the crap out of what the US can perform. That´s one up for the communist swedes ;)
Is it so that American intelligence equals Fox News?

Mats S / September 3, 2009 5:51 PM

Its unfortunate the type of debate and coverage were getting from the media about Healthcare Reform. I mean if the media were to do its job of doing good investigative reporting and putting out objective information about how healthcare is delivered and paid for, there be Healthcare Reform. However, I also stress they talk to people who are uninsured and underinsured. The stories I've heard from these people makes me almost cry because its so horrible and sad. In August there was an organization that came through LA called RAM that provided free care for dental, vision, and primary-care. I mean the line for these services were huge, they actually had to turn away people because they were overwhelmed. One reporter reported that a lot of these people had gone without these services for years and some never. I saw one lady cry because she was thankful that a dentist took away the pain she had in one tooth for years. I want the media to do its job of covering how healthcare works in this country, and to not take partisan sides for this debate. I hope the politicians and the American people can identify the problems with healthcare in America and find a sensible and coherent solution to these problems. Think of it as doing a moral good for the American people.

Eduardo / September 3, 2009 10:40 PM

Unfortunately, the only thing that will bring change to the U.S. healthcare system is its complete collapse. Disaster is the only thing that brings quick change in the U.S.

Notice how the very same argumant was used in regard to airline security before 911. Airlines bid out security contracts to the lowest bidder. Only when that market approach brought naitonal disaster did the Federal Government step in and nationalize airline security. Unfortunately, only when the people are dying in the streets and personal bakruptcy due to medical bills hits 99% of all bakruptcies will the change finally happen.

It may be the best thing for the current effort to fail and let the system destroy itself.

Unfortunately that will be at the cost of many lives, pain and suffering.

DemTex / September 3, 2009 11:17 PM

Like DemTex, I also think a crisis will be necessary to convince the holdouts that this can't continue. Medicare will go bankrupt in 7-10 years and by then something will have to be done. People will argue till their blue in the face until then but at that point we will have a crisis. Somethings got to give. The status quo can't continue for much longer. Look how many more people are for change since the last big push 15 years ago. Another 10 years and with falling wages and a collapse of the medicaid something will have to be done. This entirely free market system we have today will be history. Does anyone really see it playing out any other way? BTW...I'm not for government healthcare like the UK. There are other options!

David E / September 4, 2009 6:48 PM

I'm a Canadian, living in Canada. I'll try to put things in context.

1. Somebody who waits 3 years for an orthopedic procedure, especially a young person, is waiting because the procedure is not medically urgent. Yes, it's a pain in the rear, but that's a simple capacity question: the healthier person waits so that more urgent cases are seen first.

Let me be clear.

All my friends and family who needed urgent care got seen IMMEDIATELY. They got MRI, CT scans, sonography within 24 hours. Canadians are spoiled rotten, and too many of them go to the ER for care that could be provided by a walk-in clinic or a family doctor.

2. Care quality and effectiveness does vary between provinces and even between cities in provinces.

3. "Bitching" about the health care system is both normal and allowed: that's how things get improved. But a move to a fully "free market" system is an absolute non-starter in Canada, no matter what any blowhards on our side of the border tell you. The fact is that health care costs are rising all over the developed world, not just in the United States. There are many reasons:

- the biggest chunk of health care expenses are drugs, and their prices having been rising mercilessly
- the population is getting older
- the increasing use of new, expensive medical technology
- deteriorating lifestyle (poor eating habits; too much time sitting on couches and in car seats)

4. The claims of tax paid are wildly overstated. My total income tax in 2008 was 33%. Some people are creatively inflating the numbers. 60%? In Canada, the highest tax rates are still below 50%; in other countries your income has to be pretty huge before you're paying 60%.

Health care costs money. The sad thing is that Americans pay one way or another -- but if you're going to pay, why not have a system that insures everybody, provides complete coverage, and doesn't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions?

Why not? Because some people are getting rich off that system, and they will use their riches to fight to protect it.

Stephen Bosch / September 5, 2009 3:15 AM

I have been lucky enough to travel to many of the countries enjoying health care for all, or for practically all their citizens. Each and everyone I have encountered acknowledges the "taxes," but when asked if they would prefer the system we have in the U.S., they laugh, and say "never." It frees them from this very basic human worry not only for themselves, but for their children, parents, and grandparents. In this global economy where the U.S. must compete with the western industrialized nations with health care in place, we are going to lag farther and farther behind. Many of us just can't see the big picture.

Diana / September 6, 2009 7:34 PM

After watching these videos I sent the url and my comments to my sister, a card-carrying wing-nut so she could see something other than the info she gets from the "We report-you decide" network. She wrote back that she has basically made up her mind and she doesn't want to see or hear anything different. I can look at the cable new programs anytime and see the same thing. So I go online to see something from a different perspective.

As someone here has mentioned, the alternatives to providing health care for the uninsured and less fortunate are to reform our health care or send them all to our emergency rooms at 20 times the costs. An aspirin in an ER is around $10. Gimme a break.... who's paying congress to not reform health care? HMOs and insurance companies.

Dan C. / September 8, 2009 2:19 AM

Frontline... Keep up the good work. In large part, we have a public/private partnership to thank for this show. I've been actively emailing my congress person that we should look at all options, BUT the current PRIVATE-ONLY system is a complete disaster! We need a public and a private option that works...

Walker Thompson / September 8, 2009 10:29 PM

Our son is fluent in german and french. As a talented technical professional he doesn't have a problem getting a good paying job.

He has chosen to live in Switzerland. We have a long trip to see the grandchildren, but we don't have to worry that he and his family are ever without proper health care.

I wish the same could be said for families living in the US.

Bob G / September 9, 2009 5:24 AM

The United States or the world for that matter will nerver survive socially or even as a species in the long term as long as we continue put economic and monetary gains or losses over the right to live and not only live but live a life of health.

V Ward / September 9, 2009 6:38 AM

It is unfortunate that so many misconceptions, prejudice, and flawed ideology gets in the way.
What this program showed is a handful of options to deal with health care. Each has its ups and downs; to take two of them, only the UK approximates to an extent what the nazi conservatives call "socialism"; cruel irony that the british "socialists" are the U.S. closest allies.
Germany must have had a communist in Von Bismarck when he developed the first modern health care system in the western world (and the first "social security" by the way). The program sadly did not point out that Bismark HATED socialists and communists.
Going to the facts, all those countries showed that it is possible to run a system that would cover all the population at a lower cost than in the U.S. and get comparable or better health care outcomes. And I said LOWER cost! The U.S. system costs more than any of those and some cost differential are dramatic like administrative costs.
Oh, but governments are inefficient and bureaucratic... you gotta be kiddin'. Last year we run as close as a total economic meltdown thanks to the wonders of the american "free enterprise" represented in wall street. Pirates with ties would be more appropriate.
And observe the "efficient" behavior of the private sector in employment; during the boom they kept on hiring droves of people even though they might not have been needed thus amplifying the upward move. Now they are firing likewise and amplifying the fall. Government employment? steady or declining... stop talking nonsense about government; government bureaucrats cannot use public money to bribe legislators like corporations do... yes, what lobbies do is bribing, what do you think it is?

I am watching the outcomes of the health care debate very closely; in the past I had considered americans to be pragmatic enough to adopt reasonable changes if circumstances advised it. Now, the idiotic fundamentalism I am witnessing is telling that perhaps something has changed (and not for the better) in american society

Gleon / September 10, 2009 12:13 AM

Healthcare is an example of exaggerated sense "American exceptionalism." Many citizens and politicians are unable to swallow the idea that we can learn from the experience in other countries.

Denis / September 10, 2009 11:37 AM

I agree with the people who posted that nothing will change until the whole system is in utter ruin. The crucial point to me is that this is a moral issue that has been obscured by capitalism at its worst. Last night, the President referenced the moral aspect of this issue but unfortunately he was paraphrasing an e-mail he received from Ted Kennedy. I think it would have been better if the President had stated that this is a moral issue to him and as our leader his vision is that our Nation would shape reform based upon that framework.

I believe that a single payer system is the only way to re-direct money that is already in the system from profits for some people to health care for all people. I also believe that a Public Option was never intended to happen (otherwise they would have started bargaining at single payer and traded down to public option – right?) but rather is being used as a bargaining chip with the health insurance industry. All along I think the only “reform” was getting the insurance companies to drop their more egregious tactics (like pre-existing conditions) in exchange the industry would gain 45 million new “insureds” (some paid for by, you guessed it – us the taxpayers!) because now the government will mandate everyone buy insurance or pay a fine or penalty. In the end the Health Insurance industry gains a captive market of 45 million additional insureds, most subsidized by taxpayer dollars, and gives up nothing much, all at a time when the majority of its insured are getting older and sicker (read: cherry picking days are growing short, boys!). I don’t know, this seems like business as usual with a win for the corporations and not much for the American people – although the President and Democrats get to pat themselves on the back and say “Look we solved the health care problem in the US and now no one is uninsured, blah, blah blah…”. Personally, I’d rather my tax dollars go to supporting health care not health care INSURANCE!

With respect to the corruption of our system by the lobbyists funded by corporations, I hate to tell you that it looks like the US Supreme Court is about to deliver another death blow (today) to the American people by allowing corporations to "speak" out about federal candidates, throwing out 50 years of federal and state laws that made it illegal for corporations to use their vast economic power to influence federal elections. Just as they let the Credit Card companies charge whatever fees they choose to ensnare and bury Americans in debt so now big business gets to lend its "voice" to who should be elected to represent us, the American people. We have already seen what happens to “free press” when big business owns the newspapers and television/cable/radio stations. The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves!

If I believed in conspiracies, I could almost think that the health care reform debate was a red herring used to distract the People from the BIG story - more power to the corporations who are really the ones in control.

Respectfully,
M. Heckler
Stratford, CT

MHeckler / September 10, 2009 1:07 PM

David E's comment just proves the point made by the Republicans against Medicare and Social Security. All Government run healthcare is a ponzi scheme attempting to take from those who work and give to those who do not. Social Security and Medicare are the same thing. We need to end all these programs. America was a far greater nation when we didn't have them.

Further, Government run healthcare is just another way for liberals and Democrats to control our lives. In fact it is the final building block to have a socialist/communist nation. America is built on the rights of the INDIVIDUAL! Not the so-called group rights. I am sick of welfare, I am sick of spending my money and giving MY money to people who have not earned it. The socialists cannot, by any sound reading of the constitution, force me to buy health insurance if I don't want to.

If we had some common sense plans to regulate insurance on the national level, instead of state-by-state, and we regulated tort lawyers in medical malpractice cases, we'd be better off as a nation.

For those of you whiners and people who don't have jobs and want me to pay your way, I ask you this: Why is it that every time someone from Canada is denied so-called "elective" surgery for prostate or breast cancer, they come south of the border to pay for it in the U.S.? Obviously, there is no answer to that question by the leftists and Democrats or even the State Run Media (PBS).

Dashiell Rohan / September 11, 2009 10:52 AM

This video should be required viewing for all Americans. Especially the wingnuts who are sending money to that lout Wilson who added to the "death panel" hysteria of the phony town hall nonsense by so rudely screaming, incorectly, "you lie" at our presdient.

Brandon / September 11, 2009 12:58 PM

I agree with Brandon about everyone watching this video. I do not understand why so many go on about the Canadian system which was not covered by this video. Why look at a bad system when there are several very good systems that work well and more cheaply than the US?
At least, the conversation here is more intelligent that the letters to the editor in most papers. There are so many things that have to be fixed in the US to bring down costs, I don't know where to begin but they all have to be tackled or the reforms won't work. We do need tort reform, we need not for profit insurance companies, we need competition for costs of prescription drugs, we need to reduce administration costs, we need to promote healthier living and we need to address the many harmful chemicals in our food and water that is making more people ill.
I am an American that lives in the US and the UK.
I love the UK's NHS. Both my husband and I have had treatment in the NHS which has been wonderful. Just 2 weeks ago, my husband had a double bypass operation. He had excellent care and no cost. Our taxes do not seem that different from the taxes we pay in the US.

catherine / September 15, 2009 9:11 AM

It is not 'attacking' the NHS for defenders of a half-market based (the governement already consumes about 50% of the health care dollar in this country, but somehow it is supposed to be the 'private' element that is the problem) medical system to point out the ways in which American consumers may look askance at the British system.

Isn't it the U.S. system that is under attack? I thought it was the U.S. system of which reforms were being demanded by one party. The framing gives away the painfully orthodox point of view of the producers - their side (the political Left) throws the first punch, then when the other side responds, it is the other side who is 'attacking'. All too typical.

Mark Richard / October 15, 2009 11:26 AM

Being a vet, I have more experience with what a government can be and what it actually is. Certain symptoms, go to the VA, in hospital 3 days and the diagnosis: pneumonia. 18 mos later: same symptoms, have stress test-arterogram by civilian docs. Diagnosis: coronary artery disease, 100/75% blockage, awaiting stent or bypass surgery. But, my experience with the Rx and medical records service is the opposite. Both are well managed and effective (mostly!)Government, at all levels, needs to be more task oriented and efficient.

Tom / October 16, 2009 8:52 AM

Yes the system has its faults and flaws but far less than the American system.
Everyone is covered ( Brits do not have the illegal immigration you do) and no question of leaving $7m uninsured.
My brother had quadruple by pass surgery and rehab fully covered and cost him around 10$ a week for nedications only no one faces bankruptcy for medical treatment.
Doctors or insurance companies do not need to worry about "penal damages"
You can have ADDITIONAL private cover on top of the so called single payer system at additional cost but you cannot opt out of the single payer
system once you start work, but you pay only if you are working.
The taxation rules are totally different to USA.
Regards,
Hodgson.

J.V.Hodgson / October 17, 2009 3:58 AM

Colin from Halifax
"The biggest point is that Canadians bitch and Moan about our health care system all the time, until the moment they think Americans are watching, then we change our tune..trust me on this." no Colin what we do here in Canada is this..... Canadians bitch and Moan about our health care system until we need it.my Dad passed away from cancer, god rest his soul, but one saving grace is when dad was laid to rest my mom was not saddled with medical bills, dad spent more then a month in the hospital in the same province you live in also Colin. the only problem i have in Canada with our system is doctors and nurses will not come to small remote towns as where i live. it is a serious concern in Canada and one that is a direct result of our system it pits Provinces and Hospitals against one another and that creates long waiting times for the most basic care something the people in America should study and come to a solution if at all possible.

Amanda / October 18, 2009 2:09 AM

Health Care That Isn’t

It always amazes me that Americans mistake Health Care for Health Insurance. The two are poles apart. Health Care is the delivery of actual medical care. Health Insurance is nothing more than a lottery; you are not paying for the delivery of a service but instead purchasing the possibility that the insurance company (after taking a substantial profit, of course) might pay for some of your medical bills. One is a service, the other is a profit-taking corporation who certainly doesn’t have the interest of the patient as its bottom line. Seems pretty hard to confuse the two. Yet in his attempt to reform America’s Health Care system, that’s exactly what President Obama has done.
Obama has not only let the insurance corporations set the terms of the debate, he’s invited them to the table. And not unpredictably, the result is a Health Care Reform bill that does not serve the interests of the American people or their health. The bill that has currently escaped the Senate Finance Committee is worse than useless. It takes a discussion of America’s health care needs and turns it into a wrangle over corporate monopoly. It is a sop to the insurance companies and a burden to those it was meant to help. And without the “public” plan option, the Health Care Reform bill is meaningless, because it simply doesn’t address what’s actually broken in the American Health Care System: for decades, decisions about the health of Americans have been at the mercy of out of control profit-taking corporations.
What’s broken about the American Health Care System is that American does not have a not-for-profit system that delivers medical services to all its citizens, and that is responsible to those citizens, not to a board of investors whose sole motivation is corporate greed. What’s broken about the American Health Care System is that *it doesn’t have one*. What America has is a number of companies that prey on its citizens in their hour of desperate need, and Obama’s current Health Care Reform Bill doesn’t change that.
In the film, “The American President”, there is a telling exchange between two of the characters over a crime bill the Chief Executive has just sent to the floor:

President: “Government is choosing, government is prioritizing; I made no secret of the
fact the Crime Bill was my top priority.”

Sydney: “Well then, congratulations! It’s only taken you three years to put together
crime prevention legislation that has no hope of preventing crime!”

President: “Sid, please, I don’t wanna lose you over this.”

Sydney: “Mr. President, you got bigger problems than losing me. You just lost my vote.”

Congratulations, President Obama. You have just put together Health Care Reform legislation that has no hope of delivering Health Care to the American people. And, Mr. President, you’ve just lost my vote.

C.L. Shea / October 18, 2009 8:27 PM

Once we force the federal gov. to overhaul the social security system of illegals using there work only ITIN #'s to gain credit then we can have a fed run medical system.

MIke G. / October 20, 2009 1:49 AM

After the war, America was the envy of the rest of the world when it came to the prosperity of the general population (African Americans aside). Sixty years later countries which had been devastated by war, with some timely assistance from the Marshall Plan, but which have taken a more "socialistic" attitude to wealth distribution are showing America a clean pair of heels when it comes to the prosperity of the general population (including education, health and peace of mind about things that worry people).

Perhaps the time has come to revisit myopic attitudes to many of the issues Americans treat as gospel, especially the evils of "Socialism".

Richard Ure / October 20, 2009 6:30 PM

But the president has lied on numerous occasions. Or at least he has made commitments only to go back and break them. But I digress.

What the American people need is a full reporting of the pros and cons related to the health care legislation we contemplate. Culture should not be discounted as a component of the success of legislation. The health care system in Britain works in part because of the culture there; the mindset. We have a different mindset here.

What really needs to happen is an honest effort to inform and then determine what will work best. Instead "we the people" let politics get in the way -- both parties are guilty of it -- and here we are... bitching at one another in partisan fashion.

Let's be clear (to steal a phrase), Obama is just another politician, and yes, his are "just words". Get over it! And yes the media is biased. Of course the media has ALWAYS been biased. Duh.

Lastly, try thinking for yourself rather than spewing or regurgitating the party line.

Jeffrey / October 21, 2009 2:09 AM

I have only two question; how many new inovativive surgeries, procedures and medicines has Great Britain (GB)created in the past 60 years? It's my understanding that a vast majority of the above has come out of the US healthcare system or Did GB sacrifice inovation for coverage and what is the life expectency for a man with prostate cancer in GB?

A.Boudreau / October 21, 2009 12:58 PM

NHS WAS STARTED IN ENGLAND BEFORE I LEFT FOR cANADA AND EVENTUALLY THE USin 1964. I visited my sister in England last in July 2009. NHS still all most people use. High Acceptance. It is morer com[p;icatd than detractors admit. eg. Three tiers of hospitals. NHS hosptials do not know how to send out bills. You just go and get treated. Foundation hospitals have extra charges but operate under the same standards as regular kind. On top of that there are still more expensive efforts that I have not yet learned enough about. In general NHS is good system at half our price. Dave Forth

David Forth / October 21, 2009 5:40 PM

Unfortunately, people in the U.S. rely too much on what's fed to them via Fox, CNN, and other corporate media. To make matters worst, the state of our educational system is one of the worst ones in the world and an uneducated society is easily manipulated by a party such as the Republican party which shouts "Socialism" oh my god! evil!. Also, We have the best democracy money can buy, and the insurance industry has a lot of money to buy as many politicians as they like. Bottom line, "don't expect any healthcare reform any time soon." Even Obama the "savior," claims that a Public Option is no longer necessary. So, "we are screwed!" just pray no one in your family gets sick.

Alvaro / October 21, 2009 7:24 PM

Well, I wish that all stories about NHS were all rosy. Let's just say that we all contribute to NHS by paying otrageous taxes. One person doesn't care what he puts in his body (like the doctor in the film); balloons to nearly 300 lbs and ends up staying in the hospital for 6 days; and the other person keeps himself in good shape and the basically out of the hospital for years at a time. WOULD THAT BE FAIR TO SOME OF YOU?

Why would I pay for the health care of an obese person or a smoker who should have known better not to eat so much or not to smoke his lungs away? I want to know why should I pay for illegal people's health care? Can I go to the UK or Canada then?

I'm a divorced person who pays too much taxes already; and my doctor's visits are only preventive - my annual physical exam. I knew at an early age not to smoke, not do drugs and not to be obese.

I think that Obama needs to fix only what's broken, and not to fix what's not broken. How about starting to provide health care for those who don't have it and can't afford it? Give priority to the children and the elderly, and so on. It doesn't make sense to spend trillions of dollars when you can only spend billions.

I didn't go to Harvard and didn't teach constitutional law; and I am not the president; but I know this much- his plans to further burden us with bigger taxes is unconstitutional.

Sharbat / October 22, 2009 2:47 PM

Yeah...why do I have to pay for my neighbors kids to go to school??? Just because he and his wife are working all day gives them no excuse not to home school them if they can't afford private schools...ohhhh...it's called a PUBLIC school.Would that be anything like a PUBLIC option? Why do I have to pay for for firefighters and policemen for my RECKLESS neighbors...I have never called or needed either!!! It's because I care for more than just ME....which is more than I can say for some...

J Frato / October 22, 2009 11:26 PM

Look at the outcomes. The UK system is far less efficient than even the other EU systems! Their routine cancer survival rates are far lower. See the chart with the data:

http://freemarketmojo.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/us-vs-europe-life-expectancy-and-cancer-survival

But the giant trump card is still personal freedom. Regardless of paying for care, I never, ever want to live in a country where the government tells me whether I am allowed to buy or not buy care, insurance, etc. We cannot ever give them power over live and death! In the UK you MAY NOT buy any supplements or you lose ALL gov't. care! Liberty or death!

aardvark / October 23, 2009 2:17 PM

The UK or Canadian systems of course have horror stories, but so does the US system.
The key difference is that The UK and Canadian sysytems and others do not leave out 47m people from some cover, which even if faulty is better than nothing. Faults can be fixed by a national consensus of the people not a national consensus of profit driven insurance companies.
And if you think the Anti trust law exemption in the US is not affecting premiums and COSTS think again.
Regards,
Hodgson

J.Hodgson / October 24, 2009 3:10 AM

Great job Frontline, networks and cable news programs could learn a lot from you!

tbreitano / October 27, 2009 9:45 AM

aardvark wrote:-
In the UK you MAY NOT buy any supplements or you lose ALL gov't. care!
I presume this nitwit means a UK citizen cannot have both private and NHS cover.
Total bullshit!
My NHS doctor facilitated my consultation and treatment in the private sector. I chose that option because it suited me at the time for various reasons. Furthermore, the cost of the private treatment was a fraction of what you would pay in the US because the NHS 'public option' keeps the private providers' costs in check.
You know, if it weren't for the majority of poor US citizens who have the good sense to know that they are being ripped off and victimized, I'd say that people like you get what you so richly deserve.

C. Dobbin / October 27, 2009 8:40 PM

SEND A COMMENT

Editors' Notes