Home » Forums

[MSE Lawrence]

Poll between 17-25 August 2009:

Tell the USA your views on the NHS.

There’s a furore in the USA about healthcare policy, and some say President Obama’s planned actions are equivalent to setting up a NHS. That’s meant huge debate over there about the service we have over here.

Which of these is closest to your message to the USA?

A. Big Thumbs Up. Free healthcare has always worked for me, go for it. - 27% (3739 votes)
B. Thumbs Up. It’s got its faults but it's better than any ‘pay’ system. - 50% (6879 votes)
C. Thumbs Up-ish. It needs serious change, but on balance I’d still recommend it. - 17% (2371 votes)
D. Thumbs Down-ish. It has some good elements, but on balance I’d stick with what you’ve got. - 2% (317 votes)
E. Thumbs Down. It hardly works, we need radical change to make it passable. - 2% (253 votes)
F. Big Thumbs Down. We need to scrap our outdated, outmoded system. - 2% (279 votes)

This vote has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

Enter e-mail to get it:   View Past Emails, FAQ Privacy Policy

[~*Plushroom*~]

Originally Posted by MSE Lawrence

Poll Started 17 August 2009:

Tell the USA your views on the NHS.

There’s a furore in the USA about healthcare policy, and some say President Obama’s planned actions are equivalent to setting up a NHS. That’s meant huge debate over there about the service we have over here.

Which of these is closest to your message to the USA?

A. Big Thumbs Up. Free healthcare has always worked for me, go for it.
B. Thumbs Up. It’s got its faults but it's better than any ‘pay’ system.
C. Thumbs Up-ish. It needs serious change, but on balance I’d still recommend it.
D. Thumbs Down-ish. It has some good elements, but on balance I’d stick with what you’ve got.
E. Thumbs Down. It hardly works, we need radical change to make it passable.
F. Big Thumbs Down. We need to scrap our outdated, outmoded system.

Please vote here, or click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

Though it's got faults I am all for the NHS. I know quite a few Americans, hell I'm even in a relationship with one, and having heard first hand what they put up with I am very grateful for what we have.

Yes, pretty much everyone has a horror story to tell about their experiences with the NHS, but it is better than having to have health insurance and if not having to wait through the night at a free clinic hoping they'll have time to see you, or worrying that because of something in your health records you won't even be allowed insurance anyway.

[meher]

The concept of NHS is simply perfect, the only problem with this vision has been that when the system was designed to offer everyone health, they forgot to consider the effect it would have, which was that people lived longer and became elderly. So the elderly care has been inadequate for want of home care and many are having to leave their homes they lovingly built and took great pride in, to settle for nursing homes for the rest of their lives. I think NHS should consider community care and outreach work seriously and if the US could do that as well, it would be just fantastic.

Aside, my understanding is that US too spends the same proportion as that of the UK on health care, the difference being in the UK everyone is covered, so I don't see why they shouldn't consider having an NHS.

ETA: middle-management and their interference is what costs NHS, more power to those who work with patients, ie. health professionals shoud have total freedom to find solutions, throwing money at health care provisions is not the solution, instead to make the best of what's already there

[simongregson]

It amazes me that a country of the USA's resources does not have a comprehensive healthcare system.

There are of course faults with the NHS, but the principle of a healthcare system based on need and free at the point of access is one of the major achievements of this country, and something that most people of whatever political persuasion are justifiably proud of. It is unfortunately in our nature to moan, and a lot of americans have misunderstood this as meaning we would rather not have our NHS.

There are vested interests in the USA who don't like the idea of healthcare based upon need and would rather that it is based on the ability to pay. This 'dog eat dog' mentality is not the mark of a civilised society, and I really hope that Obama forces through the change that the majority of the American public have given him a mandate for.

[Saucepot]

If the NHS is such a great system, why has the world not copied it? To say that Obama is about to is wrong. He's attempting to create universal compulsary health insurance. More similar to the rest of europe than our own NHS.

When you look at the survivial rates for most cancers, the world beats us. The NHS is not the envy of the world.

The sad thing is, when people criticise the NHS they are labelled as people that want to abolish it and let poor people die, and only have decent healthcare for the rich.

Universal high quality healthcare is possible, unfortunalty a 60 year old socialist model the rest of the world wouldn't touch with a barge pole is not the answer.

[meher]

The problem though with the health insurance system is that people would go into hospitals only in emergencies, which doesn't exactly address the essence of keeping yourself healthy, neither does it compliment evidence based medical practice nor would there be any emphasis or scope for preventative medicine.

[Saucepot]

Hospital are filthy, people are better off steering clear. If you want to stay healthy, best thing to do is steer clear of doctors and hospitals.

[Mr Mumble]

Very poorly constructed poll. The NHS is not 'free' and the Americans are not being asked if they want an NHS-type system (though arguably a state-subsidised "public-option" has the same main downside - you have to pay twice for treatments the government deems too expensive).

The NHS has had an unsustainable boost in spending from banking and property taxes that are not coming back. It's hard to qualify what a sustainable NHS would look like or how other public services would suffer if NHS spending was maintained at about 8% of GDP (notably far higher than the 3.5% of the early 1950s). Even if real government health spending could be kept static this would be enormously problematic with the retiring baby-boomer generation leading to greater requirements for healthcare.

[FROSTYFRECKLE]

I have had a lot of experience of NHS hospitals as my husband has a neurological condition. Hand on heart I have never seen or entered a dirty hospital. Hubby has had first class treatment. Neurosurgical unit that treats hubby is one of the best (if not the best) in Europe - I Googled and found the stats. My husband is uninsurable as regards life insurance, he would have no chance of obtaining health insurance. Is the NHS perfect - H*ll No! Far too many Managers and Administrators. In certain areas of the UK the NHS is under strain from the volume of people. There are problems, no system is perfect.

[minerva_windsong]

The issue I have with it all is that American right wing groups think Obama wants to create NHS USA. He doesn't. What he wants to do is create a government insurance scheme to provide health insurance to people who can't afford to get it privately, which will then drive down costs of private health insurance to allow it to compete, which will make it cheaper and therefore more affordable to more people.

(Sorry, but people who don't find out the facts before shooting their mouths off about things really irritate me.)

[/rant]

I went for option B - granted the NHS is not brilliant but I'd far rather have it than have to have private health insurance, because I simply can't afford that out of my own pocket and as someone who has a couple of underlying medical conditions, one of which is most likely genetic, chances are on a US system I might not get it.

This article was published in the Independent on Saturday: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-1772580.html I defy anyone to read it and not think that universal health care in some shape or form is a good idea. People shouldn't be denied (what I think is) a basic human right just because they can't afford it.

Although this has prompted a weird thought - is there such a thing as an American version of MSE? As I assume were this scheme put in place, then when Americans were renewing their health insurance they could go, "Well I can get government insurance for $xxx a year," which seems very MSE to me...

[Fulham_Mark]

Loyalty to the NHS is very nice but let's not delude ourselves that the system is faultless

The NHS faults are:
1. Political intervention is huge. All the targets? money spent on popular health causes and and endless new strategies and changes to grab headlines

2. that joe public has little motivation to keep healthy and do all the checkups etc they should so. Our cancer treatment is v good but we spot cancer too late and do too few tests and checkups. I'd go for my cancer checkups if my insurance cover depended on it

3. It's almost impossible to sack incompetant doctors, surgeons and nurses. A very small number of people can do a huge amount of damage. It is only recently that performance data has been made available.

I hope Obama gets it right and we can move in his direction.

[fullstop]

Originally Posted by Fulham_Mark

Loyalty to the NHS is very nice but let's not delude ourselves that the system is faultless

The NHS faults are:
1. Political intervention is huge. All the targets? money spent on popular health causes and and endless new strategies and changes to grab headlines

2. that joe public has little motivation to keep healthy and do all the checkups etc they should so. Our cancer treatment is v good but we spot cancer too late and do too few tests and checkups. I'd go for my cancer checkups if my insurance cover depended on it

3. It's almost impossible to sack incompetant doctors, surgeons and nurses. A very small number of people can do a huge amount of damage. It is only recently that performance data has been made available.

I hope Obama gets it right and we can move in his direction.

I voted B . The amount of people in the USA without insurance is staggering.

It's not just incompetent doctors etc who are hard to sack , fully competent nurses ARE sacked for exposing neglect and ill treatment of some elderly patients.

[relaxtwotribes]

Results show that 26% of voters have voted "A", which just goes to show that 26% of voters don't even know that the NHS isn't free.

[relaxtwotribes]

Originally Posted by meher

Aside, my understanding is that US too spends the same proportion as that of the UK on health care, the difference being in the UK everyone is covered, so I don't see why they shouldn't consider having an NHS.

Roughly, it's USA spends 16% of GDP and UK 8%. And of that 16%, about 40% is spent on administration. And with 40 million Americans uninsured, those are some terrifying amounts.

No wonder they don't want an NHS.

[ElkyElky]

I'm not a fan of the NHS at all. I'd rather go private and pay through the roof, than lay in a bed in over-crowed MRSA ridden wards. Yeah, the NHS does have some good points but the bad points out-weigh the good.

[Agent Smith]

The debate is a far too Anglo-American centric. Especially as both systems are very poor compared to what exists in the rest of the world.

So, why not option G: abolish the outdated, outmoded NHS and move to a French, German, Dutch or Swiss etc universal insurance system.

[Flickering Ember]

Somewhere between B and C.

[tryingtoruletheworld]

I can't believe some of the debate they have had in the states, middle America seems to be terrified of losing out if people in poverty are given access to healthcare. I was astounded at one debate I saw the other day, I can't understand how anyone could refuse to even consider a way to provide medical treatment for all, in a supposedly rich, developed country which lets its most vulnerable people die, because they don't have the cash!

[relaxtwotribes]

AFAIK, the poor get treated for free and the rich pay for insurance. It's the 40 million in between those two groups that suffer.

[montymud]

As an ex employee of the NHS I voted B. I loved working there and I believe that we are very privileged to have a system that offers affordable health care. It is absaloutley right that the nhs is not free for the vast majority of people - it is mostly for those under, on or slightly above the poverty line. I am quite passionate about the NHS but I am under no illusions about the faults within it. C Diff has been on the rise and we all know about MRSA, and the decision to cut TB vaccines when TB cases are actually slowly on the incline has not done it any favours. However the NHS is a system that still works despite what the media would like to fill the publics heads with. I am not saying that there has not been shocking cases of malpractice or down right incompetence but the amount of patients treated succesfully against those that have had troubles is quite different and still favours the NHS. The debate is a chasm of issues from Human Rights through to minor incident reports. I agree that just because something is free to some and costs less than private healthcare to others does not mean that it can carry out its practices in anyway it sees fit, on the contrary, it certainly needs to pull its socks up, stamp out incidents and provide a more efficent service and for me I will fully support the NHS as they improve because I believe they will improve. Any huge organisation is bound to hit some speed bumps along the way, its how they rectify the issues that will decide their future.

I very much hope that Obama attempts to be Beveridge, good luck to him.