The NHS vs. Medical Insurance.
The National Health Service in England has been under a lot of fire from people who have never used it and don't understand how it works. I've used both the English and American systems of healthcare... and let me tell you that it's not even a close call. The NHS is a clear winner. The American healthcare system, far from being the best in the world, is a complete mess. It's costly and a ridiculous burden for average people. Give me higher taxes any day... I'd rather pay and not have to worry about where the money for treatment will come from when I need it. But don't take my word for it; here's my experience with the mess that is American healthcare.
It was a frightening day in 2008 when I went for a routine pap smear and was told that my heart sounded irregular and that I needed to see a doctor urgently. I hadn't really used my U.S. medical insurance much until that point, so I went along to a doctor to be told that extreme stress was putting a strain on my heart. He gave me a two-week sample of antidepressants and sent me on my way.
Two weeks later, he wrote me a prescription for a refill. I went over to the pharmacist, waited for my script... only to be told the insurance provider refused to fund that medication. I could pay the full amount out of my pocket, but the lady said it would be extremely expensive so it was easier just to head back over to the doctor and have him write me a prescription for something else.
The doctor was not amused. He had to write a prescription for TWO drugs to get the effect he wanted. So I went back over only to find the two medications... WITH coverage were going to cost me over $100.
I'm not a wealthy person. At the time I earned $8 an hour. My job offers no healthcare benefits... the only reason I'm not completely without coverage is because my husband's job offers benefits.
As you can imagine, I got off those antidepressants very fast. I essentially lied to my doctor and told him I felt fine because $100 every month is a lot of money for something that didn't seem to be having much effect (and I couldn't afford to give them more time) Sure, I did survive without the antidepressants, and my health is fine as long as I keep my stress under control. That doesn't make it right that the insurance company, not the doctor determined what medication I needed. You talk about "death panels"... What do you think an insurance company is, except for a business that makes money? And a business doesn't make money unless they cut costs. These people are making the decisions on your healthcare, not you.
The other annoyance I have to endure is getting birth control. The provider I go to doesn't accept my health insurance at all, so I have to pay the whole cost. Furthermore, they insist I have a pap smear every year (even though I'm married and don't have sex with anybody else) at my own cost, or they won't give me more birth control pills. This is more expense I don't need, and I would be far happier if I could go every 2 or 3 years. The NHS used to send me letters telling me to come for my free pap smear, and of course, because it wasn't being run like a business where they try to milk you for money, they didn't tie it to having access to birth control pills.
How can you turn around and tell me the American healthcare system is the best in the world?
In England, my antidepressants would have cost me the nominal prescription charge per item. (That's currently 7.20 GBP per item. If you get a lot of items like my parents, you can get a prepaid card which makes it even cheaper. Certain illnesses or lack of income make you exempt from the charge.) There would have been no charge for the doctor's visit (Here I have to pay a $15 "co-pay" every time I go). I could still choose my own doctor (there were about 6 different ones at my local surgery in the village where I used to live).
I miss the NHS. Obama's healthcare plan sadly, in my opinion, doesn't go far enough. In recent years I've turned against some public programs but healthcare simply does not work for the recipients when run as a business. People make decisions based on affordability rather than need. It's a system that costs the entire nation when people choose not to see a doctor and fall ill, calling out from work or becoming more seriously ill. I see low-income people here abuse the emergency room because they know they can go there for minor ailments and never pay the bill. We pick up that tab for that, too. So we might as well simply put our taxes into a public healthcare system and make it work for everybody. Not only is it good for everybody's health, but it's convenient too. I wouldn't have to waste my time and the doctor's running back and forth trying to get a prescription that my plan will cover. In England I could see a doctor, no hassle. My mother has several serious illnesses which require constant monitoring and I know she's in good hands. She's never complained to me that she couldn't get the tests or medication she needed. Over here... I dread getting sick. The bill is a frightening prospect. Last year we shelled out $500 so Jason could have his wisdom teeth out... again, that was WITH coverage.
I'm annoyed that people are being fooled into being against something that in the long-term will probably be good for them and save them money. And I wanted to stand up for the healthcare system in England, which, despite some flaws on waiting times and not funding some drugs, is still worlds ahead of the mess we call a system here in America. It's a system that allows equal access to healthcare for everybody... instead of the system here where the rich with good jobs get good plans and the rest of us have poor plans or no healthcare plans at all... and with those plans, healthcare is very expensive.
ADDENDUM: A few notes on the approval of medications: In England there's a group called NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence), that creates guidelines for whether they think treatments are effective enough to be available on the NHS and there's been some contention about certain new drugs not being recommended for early stage sufferers of certain diseases (I think Alzheimer's is one) because they're considered too expensive for the benefit they give. These are pretty rare though, and unlike the behind closed doors arbitrary decisions made by insurance companies, there is at least some public debate about whether these drugs should be funded or not. The system's not perfect - but it's much better than the broken, expensive American system.
It was a frightening day in 2008 when I went for a routine pap smear and was told that my heart sounded irregular and that I needed to see a doctor urgently. I hadn't really used my U.S. medical insurance much until that point, so I went along to a doctor to be told that extreme stress was putting a strain on my heart. He gave me a two-week sample of antidepressants and sent me on my way.
Two weeks later, he wrote me a prescription for a refill. I went over to the pharmacist, waited for my script... only to be told the insurance provider refused to fund that medication. I could pay the full amount out of my pocket, but the lady said it would be extremely expensive so it was easier just to head back over to the doctor and have him write me a prescription for something else.
The doctor was not amused. He had to write a prescription for TWO drugs to get the effect he wanted. So I went back over only to find the two medications... WITH coverage were going to cost me over $100.
I'm not a wealthy person. At the time I earned $8 an hour. My job offers no healthcare benefits... the only reason I'm not completely without coverage is because my husband's job offers benefits.
As you can imagine, I got off those antidepressants very fast. I essentially lied to my doctor and told him I felt fine because $100 every month is a lot of money for something that didn't seem to be having much effect (and I couldn't afford to give them more time) Sure, I did survive without the antidepressants, and my health is fine as long as I keep my stress under control. That doesn't make it right that the insurance company, not the doctor determined what medication I needed. You talk about "death panels"... What do you think an insurance company is, except for a business that makes money? And a business doesn't make money unless they cut costs. These people are making the decisions on your healthcare, not you.
The other annoyance I have to endure is getting birth control. The provider I go to doesn't accept my health insurance at all, so I have to pay the whole cost. Furthermore, they insist I have a pap smear every year (even though I'm married and don't have sex with anybody else) at my own cost, or they won't give me more birth control pills. This is more expense I don't need, and I would be far happier if I could go every 2 or 3 years. The NHS used to send me letters telling me to come for my free pap smear, and of course, because it wasn't being run like a business where they try to milk you for money, they didn't tie it to having access to birth control pills.
How can you turn around and tell me the American healthcare system is the best in the world?
In England, my antidepressants would have cost me the nominal prescription charge per item. (That's currently 7.20 GBP per item. If you get a lot of items like my parents, you can get a prepaid card which makes it even cheaper. Certain illnesses or lack of income make you exempt from the charge.) There would have been no charge for the doctor's visit (Here I have to pay a $15 "co-pay" every time I go). I could still choose my own doctor (there were about 6 different ones at my local surgery in the village where I used to live).
I miss the NHS. Obama's healthcare plan sadly, in my opinion, doesn't go far enough. In recent years I've turned against some public programs but healthcare simply does not work for the recipients when run as a business. People make decisions based on affordability rather than need. It's a system that costs the entire nation when people choose not to see a doctor and fall ill, calling out from work or becoming more seriously ill. I see low-income people here abuse the emergency room because they know they can go there for minor ailments and never pay the bill. We pick up that tab for that, too. So we might as well simply put our taxes into a public healthcare system and make it work for everybody. Not only is it good for everybody's health, but it's convenient too. I wouldn't have to waste my time and the doctor's running back and forth trying to get a prescription that my plan will cover. In England I could see a doctor, no hassle. My mother has several serious illnesses which require constant monitoring and I know she's in good hands. She's never complained to me that she couldn't get the tests or medication she needed. Over here... I dread getting sick. The bill is a frightening prospect. Last year we shelled out $500 so Jason could have his wisdom teeth out... again, that was WITH coverage.
I'm annoyed that people are being fooled into being against something that in the long-term will probably be good for them and save them money. And I wanted to stand up for the healthcare system in England, which, despite some flaws on waiting times and not funding some drugs, is still worlds ahead of the mess we call a system here in America. It's a system that allows equal access to healthcare for everybody... instead of the system here where the rich with good jobs get good plans and the rest of us have poor plans or no healthcare plans at all... and with those plans, healthcare is very expensive.
ADDENDUM: A few notes on the approval of medications: In England there's a group called NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence), that creates guidelines for whether they think treatments are effective enough to be available on the NHS and there's been some contention about certain new drugs not being recommended for early stage sufferers of certain diseases (I think Alzheimer's is one) because they're considered too expensive for the benefit they give. These are pretty rare though, and unlike the behind closed doors arbitrary decisions made by insurance companies, there is at least some public debate about whether these drugs should be funded or not. The system's not perfect - but it's much better than the broken, expensive American system.