UK health system hits back at US critics

Tired of being used as a punching bag in the attacks on President Obama, the NHS recently addressed a lot of mistruths about its service of care for its citizens, with pointed and direct rebuttal of conservative shenanigans.

---

LONDON (AP) - Britain's health care service says it is sick of being lied about.
Pilloried by right-wing critics of President Barack Obama's health care plan, Britain's National Health Service, known here as the NHS, is fighting back.

"People have been saying some untruths in the States," a spokesman for Britain Department of Health said in a telephone interview. "There's been all these ridiculous claims made by the American health lobby about Obama's health care plan ... and they've used the NHS as an example. A lot of it has been untrue."

He spoke anonymously in line with department policy.

As the debate over how best to look after American patients rages on, Britain's socialized health care system has increasingly found itself being drawn into the argument. Critics of the Obama administration's plan to overhaul US health care say the president is seeking to model the U.S. system on that of Britain or Canada—places they paint as countries where patients linger for months on waiting lists and are forbidden from paying for their own medication.

A Republican National Committee ad said that in the U.K. "individuals lose their right to make their own health care choices." Another ad launched earlier this month by the anti-tax group Club for Growth claimed that government bureaucrats in Britain had calculated six months of life to be worth $22,750. "Under their socialized system, if your treatment costs more, you're out of luck," the ad says, as footage of an elderly man weeping at a woman's bedside alternate with clips of the Union Jack and Big Ben.

The online attacks on Britain's health care system have been paired with strident criticism from Republican lawmakers.

In an interview widely interpreted here as an attack on the U.K., Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa told a local radio station last week that "countries that have government-run health care" would not have given Sen. Edward Kennedy, who suffers from a brain tumor, the same standard of care as in the U.S. because he is too old. Another Republican, Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia, said that the U.K. and Canada "don't have the appreciation of life as we do in our society, evidently."

A particularly outlandish editorial, printed in the Investor's Business Daily, claimed that renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, who is disabled, "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."

Hawking, who was born and lives in Britain, personally debunked the claim. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told The Guardian newspaper. Investor's Business Daily has since corrected the editorial.

The criticism, widely covered in the U.K. media, has clearly stung Britain's left-leaning Labour government. The Department of Health took the unusual step of contacting The Associated Press and e-mailing it a three-page rebuttal to what it said were misconceptions about the NHS being bandied about in the U.S. media—each one followed with the words: "Not true."

At the top of the list was the idea that a patient in his late 70s would not be treated for a brain tumor because he was too old—a transparent reference to Grassley's comments about Kennedy.

And what of Republicans' claim that British patients are robbed of their medical choices? False again, the department said.

"Everyone who is cared for by the NHS in England has formal rights to make choices about the service that they receive," it said in its rebuttal.

Then followed a fact sheet comparing selected statistics such as health spending per capita, infant mortality, life expectancy, and more. Each one showed England outperforming its trans-Atlantic counterpart.

The British government offers health care for free at the point of need, a service pioneered by Labour in 1948. In the six decades since, its promise of universal medical care, from cradle to grave, is taken for granted by Britons to such an extent that politicians—even fiscal conservatives—are loath to attack it.

But the NHS faces significant challenges, not least a multibillion pound (dollar) deficit predicted to open up over the next five years. It has its critics too, particularly cancer patients who complain that the government refuses to cover costlier drugs, leaving those who need expensive treatments to pay for them out of pocket.

Nevertheless, many in the British press bristled at the criticism from America's right wing.

"How dare the Republicans bad-mouth our free health care system?" Guardian columnist Michele Hanson wrote Wednesday. "If I'd been born in the U.S., I'd probably be dead by now."

---

You forgot to highlight color this part, which imo is very very important:

But the NHS faces significant challenges, not least a multibillion pound (dollar) deficit predicted to open up over the next five years. It has its critics too, particularly cancer patients who complain that the government refuses to cover costlier drugs, leaving those who need expensive treatments to pay for them out of pocket.

Of course, what I just highlighted is what majority of people are actually complaining about, but you chose to not acknowledge it.  Duh, of course you'll have people that like the system, especially people that can't pay for their own health insurance.  But there are equal amount of people disliking the system for exactly what is highlighted above.  With the country already deep in debt, does anybody who thinks the eventual huge deficit that'll result from nationalized healthcare is OK?

So nice try.  Tell us something we don't know next time.

---

Originally posted by Mardy
You forgot to highlight color this part, which imo is very very important:
 
But the NHS faces significant challenges, not least a multibillion pound (dollar) deficit predicted to open up over the next five years. It has its critics too, particularly cancer patients who complain that the government refuses to cover costlier drugs, leaving those who need expensive treatments to pay for them out of pocket.
 
Of course, what I just highlighted is what majority of people are actually complaining about, but you chose to not acknowledge it.  Duh, of course you'll have people that like the system, especially people that can't pay for their own health insurance.  But there are equal amount of people disliking the system for exactly what is highlighted above.  With the country already deep in debt, does anybody who thinks the eventual huge deficit that'll result from nationalized healthcare is OK?
 
So nice try.  Tell us something we don't know next time.

---

As if the U.S. healthcare system is any cheaper, right? It's busto too so you make no point.

The difference is that OUR busto covers only seniors and veterans, while THEIR busto covers everyone.

You forgot to put that into perspective. You didn't know that.

Are you saying that someone with a shitty healthcare plan (most of America) is having those insurance companies pay for their cancer drugs? Do you even PAY for your own insurance?

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Mardy
You forgot to highlight color this part, which imo is very very important:
 
But the NHS faces significant challenges, not least a multibillion pound (dollar) deficit predicted to open up over the next five years. It has its critics too, particularly cancer patients who complain that the government refuses to cover costlier drugs, leaving those who need expensive treatments to pay for them out of pocket.
 
Of course, what I just highlighted is what majority of people are actually complaining about, but you chose to not acknowledge it.  Duh, of course you'll have people that like the system, especially people that can't pay for their own health insurance.  But there are equal amount of people disliking the system for exactly what is highlighted above.  With the country already deep in debt, does anybody who thinks the eventual huge deficit that'll result from nationalized healthcare is OK?
 
So nice try.  Tell us something we don't know next time.

---

 

As if the U.S. healthcare system is any cheaper, right? It's busto too so you make no point.

 

The difference is that OUR busto covers only seniors and veterans, while THEIR busto covers everyone.

 

You forgot to put that into perspective. You didn't know that.

 

 

Are you saying that someone with a shitty healthcare plan (most of America) is having those insurance companies pay for their cancer drugs? Do you even PAY for your own insurance?

I get the Vibe alot of people posting anti-health care reform are most likely not paying for their insurance.

Either that or they just don't care.

---

Originally posted by Astropuyo

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Mardy
You forgot to highlight color this part, which imo is very very important:
 
But the NHS faces significant challenges, not least a multibillion pound (dollar) deficit predicted to open up over the next five years. It has its critics too, particularly cancer patients who complain that the government refuses to cover costlier drugs, leaving those who need expensive treatments to pay for them out of pocket.
 
Of course, what I just highlighted is what majority of people are actually complaining about, but you chose to not acknowledge it.  Duh, of course you'll have people that like the system, especially people that can't pay for their own health insurance.  But there are equal amount of people disliking the system for exactly what is highlighted above.  With the country already deep in debt, does anybody who thinks the eventual huge deficit that'll result from nationalized healthcare is OK?
 
So nice try.  Tell us something we don't know next time.

---

 
As if the U.S. healthcare system is any cheaper, right? It's busto too so you make no point.
 
The difference is that OUR busto covers only seniors and veterans, while THEIR busto covers everyone.
 
You forgot to put that into perspective. You didn't know that.
 
 
Are you saying that someone with a shitty healthcare plan (most of America) is having those insurance companies pay for their cancer drugs? Do you even PAY for your own insurance?

---

 
I get the Vibe alot of people posting anti-health care reform are most likely not paying for their insurance.
Either that or they just don't care.

---

I'll have to agree with you here.

If you look at these townyellers, most of them look to be eligible for Social Security and Medicaid. So you have the majority of people yelling they don't want socialism and socialized medicine actually already receiving it.

But yet if Obama said "Okay, we'll do away with socialized medicine in the United States because it discourages private enterprise", you'd have three times as many seniors and veterans up in arms saying the government is trying to "force my healthcare away!"

Lol.. President Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place due to the lies coming out about Britain's healthcare and the scare tactics.

I always find it funny that is you asked anyone's grandma do they think people should pay for their own healthcare, they'll say yes until you explain to them that would mean THEM too.

What part of 11 trillion (a mind boggling number) in debt do you guys not understand.   The health care plan will cost another 1 trillion dollars.  Or is that another Republican lie.    D

Ask the AARP who lies.

Originally posted by popinjay 

---

 

As if the U.S. healthcare system is any cheaper, right? It's busto too so you make no point.

 

The difference is that OUR busto covers only seniors and veterans, while THEIR busto covers everyone.

 

You forgot to put that into perspective. You didn't know that.

 

 

Are you saying that someone with a shitty healthcare plan (most of America) is having those insurance companies pay for their cancer drugs? Do you even PAY for your own insurance?

My point is about the national deficit, our debt that the government keeps on piling up.  Implement this healthcare bill, this deficit will go higher and higher, because all foreign countries that have universal healthcare got to the same conclusion.  Of course again you try to jump over a valid point to try to attack something that has nothing to do with what I quoted.

Medicare is a great example of how nationalized healthcare will end up... BANKRUPT.  We need real healthcare reform, not nationalized healthcare.  I'm neither republican or democrat, and YES I do pay for health insurance thank you very much.  But again, I fail to see how that even matters.

You on the other hand, didn't you say in another thread that you have retired early, you no longer need to work and you got plenty of money?  Can I remind you that you're in the minority, you don't represent the rest of this country.  It sure is easy for someone who's got lots of money laying around, not caring about deficit/debt, not caring whether the ill might not survive due to government not wanting to pay for expensive treatment/medicine.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Astropuyo

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 

 

---

Originally posted by Mardy
You forgot to highlight color this part, which imo is very very important:
 
But the NHS faces significant challenges, not least a multibillion pound (dollar) deficit predicted to open up over the next five years. It has its critics too, particularly cancer patients who complain that the government refuses to cover costlier drugs, leaving those who need expensive treatments to pay for them out of pocket.
 
Of course, what I just highlighted is what majority of people are actually complaining about, but you chose to not acknowledge it.  Duh, of course you'll have people that like the system, especially people that can't pay for their own health insurance.  But there are equal amount of people disliking the system for exactly what is highlighted above.  With the country already deep in debt, does anybody who thinks the eventual huge deficit that'll result from nationalized healthcare is OK?
 
So nice try.  Tell us something we don't know next time.

---

 
As if the U.S. healthcare system is any cheaper, right? It's busto too so you make no point.
 
The difference is that OUR busto covers only seniors and veterans, while THEIR busto covers everyone.
 
You forgot to put that into perspective. You didn't know that.
 
 
Are you saying that someone with a shitty healthcare plan (most of America) is having those insurance companies pay for their cancer drugs? Do you even PAY for your own insurance?

---

 
I get the Vibe alot of people posting anti-health care reform are most likely not paying for their insurance.
Either that or they just don't care.

---

 

I'll have to agree with you here.

 

If you look at these townyellers, most of them look to be eligible for Social Security and Medicaid. So you have the majority of people yelling they don't want socialism and socialized medicine actually already receiving it.

 

But yet if Obama said "Okay, we'll do away with socialized medicine in the United States because it discourages private enterprise", you'd have three times as many seniors and veterans up in arms saying the government is trying to "force my healthcare away!"

 

 

Lol.. President Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place due to the lies coming out about Britain's healthcare and the scare tactics.

 

 

I always find it funny that is you asked anyone's grandma do they think people should pay for their own healthcare, they'll say yes until you explain to them that would mean THEM too.

Yeah, I honestly see Obama as I saw Bush with the war on terror.

He can't win, no matter what he does people are going to hate him for it.

The thing I've liked about both these presidents is they are atleast doing something they believe in and willing to be the villain.

I think reform is needed, a basic guide line , something. This may be the right step, and if it's not? 

Atleast we tried. We never try, we nay say and nay say. Pull numbers from the past and various countries and go "Hey it worked for them, lets do it" or if it didn't work "It didn't work for <insert country> , why would it work here". We're too scared to do our own thing.

We have elderly receiving free aid, (i believe Vets should regardless), why not the standard populace. In some way something is needed. It's better for the populace as a whole. When your neighbor has a disease that can be treated but is contagious (TB anyone?) and he gets no help? What are your chances of getting a disease?

Cost is meaningless when we have a pandemic of crazy flu, or what have you.

Once again I point my finger to china and their plague outbreaks.

What you have to realise is that Britain is not America, the NHS is awful, we have people complaining all the time because of the huge waiting times and poor service. The debate in England is not about the level of debt but the quality of service. However you have to note that the current American system is not the solution. Privatising Healthcare completely is ridiculous, what you need is somewhere in between. Emergency care should always be free, it should not be that if you don't have health insurance you are going to die. However I think that America should go for a partially subsidised Healthcare service. It needs to be cheap and affordable yet still effective and provide a good service, it should also be made compulsory for all. This way the competitive edge is maintained and it is still affordable for all. Emergency care e.g. accident patients should not need to show their Healthcare cerificate as it is already compulsory. Grants maybe providied for those with lower incomes and special cases etc. The level of subsidy could be a percentage of the cost or a fixed amount, that is upto the administration to decide.

Anyway that's my two cents.

Originally posted by murdera2k6

What you have to realise is that Britain is not America, the NHS is awful, we have people complaining all the time because of the huge waiting times and poor service. The debate in England is not about the level of debt but the quality of service. However you have to note that the current American system is not the solution. Privatising Healthcare completely is ridiculous, what you need is somewhere in between. Emergency care should always be free, it should not be that if you don't have health insurance you are going to die. However I think that America should go for a partially subsidised Healthcare service. It needs to be cheap and affordable yet still effective and provide a good service, it should also be made compulsory for all. This way the competitive edge is maintained and it is still affordable for all. Emergency care e.g. accident patients should not need to show their Healthcare cerificate as it is already compulsory. Grants maybe providied for those with lower incomes and special cases etc. The level of subsidy could be a percentage of the cost or a fixed amount, that is upto the administration to decide.

Anyway that's my two cents.

That is the thing, there isn't even a middle ground here.

Essentially like someone put (very well) we basically have monopolies over here for insurance. It's either the one high cost, or the semi-less high cost one to pick one. Not alot of options.

I can imagine the health care centers and the like being awful, but it's better than not having anything at all.

I've been to free clinics in my days, it's not fun. However it did beat not knowing things, getting blood tests,etc.

Anything at this point regardless of cost is better than nothing. We have a nation of ill people, without the ability to get care. For a economic powerhouse this is absolutely unacceptable. We literally have less medical power than a supposed "crappy country" like Cuba. CUBA people.

Originally posted by murdera2k6

What you have to realise is that Britain is not America, the NHS is awful, we have people complaining all the time because of the huge waiting times and poor service. The debate in England is not about the level of debt but the quality of service. However you have to note that the current American system is not the solution. Privatising Healthcare completely is ridiculous, what you need is somewhere in between.

Bingo, as I said in the other thread, we NEED a healthcare reform, not the proposed bill which is simply expanding on the already failing Medicare system.  Somewhere in between is often the best way to do things, unfortunately the extreme right & left of this country can't seem to get over their differences to get something done for the American people.

1. We need to be able to purchase health insurance from any states we choose, this will open up competition, and competition will drive price down and coverage up.

2. We need health savings account so someone healthy like me won't have to pay out of my pocket because I want to go in and get bronchitis antibiotics once in 8 years.

3. We need to provide all tax payers basic coverage, which should include basic medicine, flu shots, emergency room care, physical (prevention is important), and diet counseling.

There are some very basic things they can do to reform healthcare, which will improve on what we have currently, without going down the road of bankrupting the system like medicare & social security is doing.

Originally posted by Astropuyo

Originally posted by murdera2k6

What you have to realise is that Britain is not America, the NHS is awful, we have people complaining all the time because of the huge waiting times and poor service. The debate in England is not about the level of debt but the quality of service. However you have to note that the current American system is not the solution. Privatising Healthcare completely is ridiculous, what you need is somewhere in between. Emergency care should always be free, it should not be that if you don't have health insurance you are going to die. However I think that America should go for a partially subsidised Healthcare service. It needs to be cheap and affordable yet still effective and provide a good service, it should also be made compulsory for all. This way the competitive edge is maintained and it is still affordable for all. Emergency care e.g. accident patients should not need to show their Healthcare cerificate as it is already compulsory. Grants maybe providied for those with lower incomes and special cases etc. The level of subsidy could be a percentage of the cost or a fixed amount, that is upto the administration to decide.

Anyway that's my two cents.

 

That is the thing, there isn't even a middle ground here.

Essentially like someone put (very well) we basically have monopolies over here for insurance. It's either the one high cost, or the semi-less high cost one to pick one. Not alot of options.

 

I can imagine the health care centers and the like being awful, but it's better than not having anything at all.

I've been to free clinics in my days, it's not fun. However it did beat not knowing things, getting blood tests,etc.

 

Anything at this point regardless of cost is better than nothing. We have a nation of ill people, without the ability to get care. For a economic powerhouse this is absolutely unacceptable. We literally have less medical power than a supposed "crappy country" like Cuba. CUBA people.

Oh wait they love their great health care system so much that they get on ricky boats to try to reach our land of substandard health care.   

Cuba socialist policies have ran that country to the ground.   I don't want the same to happen to the US.

---

Originally posted by Mardy

---

Originally posted by popinjay 

---

---

 
As if the U.S. healthcare system is any cheaper, right? It's busto too so you make no point.
 
The difference is that OUR busto covers only seniors and veterans, while THEIR busto covers everyone.
 
You forgot to put that into perspective. You didn't know that.
 
 
Are you saying that someone with a shitty healthcare plan (most of America) is having those insurance companies pay for their cancer drugs? Do you even PAY for your own insurance?

---

 
My point is about the national deficit, our debt that the government keeps on piling up.  Implement this healthcare bill, this deficit will go higher and higher, because all foreign countries that have universal healthcare got to the same conclusion.  Of course again you try to jump over a valid point to try to attack something that has nothing to do with what I quoted.
 
Medicare is a great example of how nationalized healthcare will end up... BANKRUPT.  We need real healthcare reform, not nationalized healthcare.  I'm neither republican or democrat, and YES I do pay for health insurance thank you very much.  But again, I fail to see how that even matters.
 
You on the other hand, didn't you say in another thread that you have retired early, you no longer need to work and you got plenty of money?  Can I remind you that you're in the minority, you don't represent the rest of this country.  It sure is easy for someone who's got lots of money laying around, not caring about deficit/debt, not caring whether the ill might not survive due to government not wanting to pay for expensive treatment/medicine.

---

Actually, I didn't say all that, so no.

The point of the article is to show you how conservatives have been flat out lying to the American people about the British and Canadian healthcare systems, not how much it costs. Lies used to prove a point isn't wise.

So while you delect those lies which has been addressed, I doubt few British or Canadian citizens of any age would trade their healthcare system for ours, no matter what the costs.

More nationalized people are satisfied with their plans than Americans are satisfied with theirs.

You're making it sound as if opponents of ObamaCare are pulling this data out of thin air.

I've heard numerous interviews with doctors from Britain stating the exact facts critics are using. Of course the NHS is going to say the opposite.

Originally posted by Dekron

You're making it sound as if opponents of ObamaCare are pulling this data out of thin air.

I've heard numerous interviews with doctors from Britain stating the exact facts critics are using. Of course the NHS is going to say the opposite.

and I've heard doctors stating the opposite.

Hmm, who to believe.......

---

Originally posted by Porfat

 
Oh wait they love their great health care system so much that they get on ricky boats to try to reach our land of substandard health care.   
Cuba socialist policies have ran that country to the ground.   I don't want the same to happen to the US.

---

Only uninformed people think people come to the U.S. on "ricky boats" to get our healthcare, lol.

They come for jobs. And now most of the Mexicans and others aren't even bothering to cross the border anymore for those, since they've moved the factories down there.

Try to stay on topic please and follow along.

Illegal Immigration from Mexico Hits Lowest Level in Decade

Cuba is an island with few resouces and exports. Embargos ruined Cuba's economy, not the policies. Cuban citizens only pay a few dollars for any of their drugs because its socialized, and they buy in bulk from drugmakers. Please stop guessing.

---

Originally posted by Dekron
You're making it sound as if opponents of ObamaCare are pulling this data out of thin air.

I've heard numerous interviews with doctors from Britain stating the exact facts critics are using. Of course the NHS is going to say the opposite.

---

And of course you can share the things you've "heard" with the rest of us right?

Or was it a friend of a friend you heard it from?

Please... don't let facts be a hindrance to you. You won't bore us.

Originally posted by Mardy

You forgot to highlight color this part, which imo is very very important:

 

But the NHS faces significant challenges, not least a multibillion pound (dollar) deficit predicted to open up over the next five years. It has its critics too, particularly cancer patients who complain that the government refuses to cover costlier drugs, leaving those who need expensive treatments to pay for them out of pocket.

 

Of course, what I just highlighted is what majority of people are actually complaining about, but you chose to not acknowledge it.  Duh, of course you'll have people that like the system, especially people that can't pay for their own health insurance.  But there are equal amount of people disliking the system for exactly what is highlighted above.  With the country already deep in debt, does anybody who thinks the eventual huge deficit that'll result from nationalized healthcare is OK?

 

So nice try.  Tell us something we don't know next time.

The majority of people in England aren't complaining about that mate.

My 85 year old dad is a cancer patient at the NHS, I don't see him buying his own drugs. My mates dad either.

Originally posted by Dekron

You're making it sound as if opponents of ObamaCare are pulling this data out of thin air.

I've heard numerous interviews with doctors from Britain stating the exact facts critics are using. Of course the NHS is going to say the opposite.

 I think you can believe Stephen Hawking himself over some yankee bloke who doesn't know him.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Dekron
You're making it sound as if opponents of ObamaCare are pulling this data out of thin air.

 

I've heard numerous interviews with doctors from Britain stating the exact facts critics are using. Of course the NHS is going to say the opposite.

---

 

And of course you can share the things you've "heard" with the rest of us right?

Or was it a friend of a friend you heard it from?

 

Please... don't let facts be a hindrance to you. You won't bore us.

I just did share what I heard.

However, I'm sorry, I don't have program notes or podcasts from the interviews from the talk shows, news shows, etc. But, of course, you would not dare listen or watch because there are dirty conservative and libertarian ideals spewed forth on these shows. They might taint you.

On a related subject, here is a nice quote from OBama:

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
-- President Barack Obama, attempting to sell government-run health care in Portsmouth, NH.