By Steve Hynd
As the American debate on healthcare continues - whether to join the civilized world that sees access to healthcare as a humanitarian rights issue or continue to be governed by companies that profit from sick people - the U.S. right has been spinning some scary stories about the British National Health Service (NHS). The trouble is, many are just scary stories with no substance behind them. The Guardian asked British healthcare professionals about some of the claims.
The claim
Ted Kennedy, 77, would not be treated for his brain tumour if he was in Britain because he is too old � Charles Grassley, Republican senator from Iowa.
The response
Untrue, says the Department of Health. "There is no ban on anyone of any age receiving any treatment, " said a spokesman. "Whether to prescribe drugs or recommend surgery is rightly a clinical decision taken on a case by case basis."
The claim
In England, anyone over 59 years of age cannot receive heart repairs, stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed � an anonymously authored, but widely circulated, email, largely sent to older voters
The response
Totally untrue. Growing numbers of patients over 65 with heart conditions are having surgery, including valve repairs and heart bypass surgery, says Professor Peter Weissberg, the British Heart Foundation's (BHF) medical director. For example, the average age at which people have a bypass operation has risen from 58 in 1991 to 66 in 2008.
Other stories apply just as well in the U.S. as they do in the U.K. I personally know Americans who have used superglue to repair their dental caps because they can no longer afford dental insurance or treatment, one of the stories most often told about British dentistry - and the story told ignores the fact that dentistry is one of the most privatised segments of British healthcare (thanks to Thatcher's conservatives), with very few NHS dentists still in practise.
Britain does lag behind the U.S. in certain areas of treatment, especially breast and prostate cancer survival rates. But then again, the U.S. lags behind the U.K. on others, like infant mortality. And the one thing you'll never hear from the wingnuts decrying Britain's "socialist" system is that the UK has a flourishing and affordable private healthcare industry too - it's a two-tier system and the largest private health inurers like BUPA are not-for-profit concerns. It's just that most people use the NHS rather than paying extra they can ill afford just to jump to the head of the line.
And the bottom line is that the UK system provides consistently better healthcare at a lower cost:
Defenders of Britain's system point out that the UK spends less per head on healthcare but has a higher life expectancy than the US. The World Health Organisation ranks Britain's healthcare as 18th in the world, while the US is in 37th place. The British Medical Association said a majority of Britain's doctors have consistently supported public provision of healthcare. A spokeswoman said the association's 140,000 members were sceptical about the US approach to medicine: "Doctors and the public here are appalled that there are so many people in the US who don't have proper access to healthcare. It's something we would find very, very shocking."
Imagine a day when you don't have to wonder "can I afford it, what's the coverage, what's the co-payment?" and just think "I'm ill, I should see a doctor." The difference really is shocking. The BMA recognises what the "I'm alright, Jack" Right do not - that profiting from illness is unethical, and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. When America has a national healthcare system - something that won't happen under Obama - then it will have brought itself into line with every other Western nation and can truly call itself a civilised nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment