Stephen Hawking Pwns U.S. Healthcare Wingnutz

By Steve Hynd

Recently wingnut rag Investors Business Daily crazily claimed:

"The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof, are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror script �People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Ignoring the fact that Prof. Hawking has lived and worked his entire life in the U.K.

Today, the world's most intelligent man replied:

 "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told us. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

As to the scary stories about the British NHS, most are no more than scary stories. Even the ones about waiting lists. The NHS median inpatient waiting time in June 2009 was 4 weeks, for outpatients it was 2.3 weeks. That's rather better than "can't afford insurance and can't afford to pay full price", now isn't it? The NHS avoids that far larger problem. And in the UK if you don't want to wait you can still go private if you can afford it using one of the many not-for-profit providers.

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. And it costs only 40% of what the current U.S. system costs.

Now ask yourself why Obama and the Democrats won't give you that. Here's your likely answer. The healthcare industry preferred to fund Dems over Republicans in the last election cycle to the tune of over $13 million dollars.