UK (including Stephen Hawkings) to the US, QUIT DEFLAMING OUT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

[GHook93]

The UK is coming out on the attack. They are stating the healthcare industry lobby representing a billion dollar industry that know Obama's plan will mean its death, is maliciously and recklessly defaming them.

Read the part about Steve Hawkings, who lives in London and supports the UK system. I think pundits have used great scare tactics in this debate to get falsehoods about socialized medicine out there.

Note: Did anyone think that maybe people have come to America for treatment because that doctor is the best in the field on it. I know people all over the world go to another socialized medicine country in Israel.

I know people all over the US flock to the doctors in LA, Chicago and NY! Why would that be? Because of certain doctors and not to flea a poor healthcare system, methink!


U.K. Hits Back at U.S. Health Reform 'Untruths' - Political News - FOXNews.com

LONDON -- Britain's health care service says it is sick of what it calls lies from critics of President Obama's health care overhaul.

Pilloried by right-wing opponents of Obama's health 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.

A particularly outlandish example of a U.S. 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.

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."

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.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The UK is coming out on the attack. They are stating the healthcare industry lobby representing a billion dollar industry that know Obama's plan will mean its death, is maliciously and recklessly defaming them.

Read the part about Steve Hawkings, who lives in London and supports the UK system. I think pundits have used great scare tactics in this debate to get falsehoods about socialized medicine out there.

Note: Did anyone think that maybe people have come to America for treatment because that doctor is the best in the field on it. I know people all over the world go to another socialized medicine country in Israel.

I know people all over the US flock to the doctors in LA, Chicago and NY! Why would that be? Because of certain doctors and not to flea a poor healthcare system, methink!


U.K. Hits Back at U.S. Health Reform 'Untruths' - Political News - FOXNews.com

LONDON -- Britain's health care service says it is sick of what it calls lies from critics of President Obama's health care overhaul.

Pilloried by right-wing opponents of Obama's health 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.

A particularly outlandish example of a U.S. 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.

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."

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.

Perhaps when Hawking said, "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he meant he would not be in a wheelchair today if it were not for the NHS. Maybe his meaning was that if he had had private insurance coverage in the US he might be walking around and talking today, perhaps even running marathons and singing opera. Maybe he was really wondering, "Why on Earth would the Americans consider trading in their very high quality health care system for one that put some one like me in a wheelchair?"

 

[Gudrid]

Oh good lord. That was about the most idiotic response you could possibly come up with.

GHook - Regarding the claim that the British can't choose to pay for their own meds, do you know what the basis of that claim is? How have they arrived at this conclusion?

 

[GHook93]

Perhaps when Hawking said, "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he meant he would not be in a wheelchair today if it were not for the NHS.

You can't be serious? Hawking has Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS)! Its uncurable right now, so it doesn't matter if he was in the US or UK. The treatment would be the same.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe his meaning was that if he had had private insurance coverage in the US he might be walking around and talking today, perhaps even running marathons and singing opera.

How is the luckiest man alive doing?

Maybe he was really wondering, "Why on Earth would the Americans consider trading in their very high quality health care system for one that put some one like me in a wheelchair?"

The guy is a multimillionaire, if he wanted to come to the US for anything he could fly here in his private jet. I think his reaction is in defense of the UK healthcare system.

 

[GHook93]

Oh good lord. That was about the most idiotic response you could possibly come up with.

GHook - Regarding the claim that the British can't choose to pay for their own meds, do you know what the basis of that claim is? How have they arrived at this conclusion?

Its not true. You can get private health insurance (for a fraction of the cost of that for American insurance) to cover things that might not be covered by the NHC system (things that might not even be covered by American insurance)!

 

[GHook93]

Here is the most interesting part I thought about the article!

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.

 

[ba1614]

Here is the most interesting part I thought about the article!

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.

Where might we find this fact sheet? I'd be interested in reading it.

I don't see anything in the above article(other than 1sentence by Hawking), that is anything more than some anonymous employee of NHS defending their employer, and some opinion of an unknown author. Is there any more than that to it? and why the anonymity?

 

[cunclusion]

The UK is coming out on the attack. They are stating the healthcare industry lobby representing a billion dollar industry that know Obama's plan will mean its death, is maliciously and recklessly defaming them.

Read the part about Steve Hawkings, who lives in London and supports the UK system. I think pundits have used great scare tactics in this debate to get falsehoods about socialized medicine out there.

Note: Did anyone think that maybe people have come to America for treatment because that doctor is the best in the field on it. I know people all over the world go to another socialized medicine country in Israel.

I know people all over the US flock to the doctors in LA, Chicago and NY! Why would that be? Because of certain doctors and not to flea a poor healthcare system, methink!


U.K. Hits Back at U.S. Health Reform 'Untruths' - Political News - FOXNews.com

LONDON -- Britain's health care service says it is sick of what it calls lies from critics of President Obama's health care overhaul.

Pilloried by right-wing opponents of Obama's health 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.

A particularly outlandish example of a U.S. 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.

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."

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.

Perhaps when Hawking said, "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he meant he would not be in a wheelchair today if it were not for the NHS. Maybe his meaning was that if he had had private insurance coverage in the US he might be walking around and talking today, perhaps even running marathons and singing opera. Maybe he was really wondering, "Why on Earth would the Americans consider trading in their very high quality health care system for one that put some one like me in a wheelchair?"

The problem is it is not high quality healthcare for everyone.

 

[GHook93]

Here is the most interesting part I thought about the article!

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.

Where might we find this fact sheet? I'd be interested in reading it.

I don't see anything in the above article(other than 1sentence by Hawking), that is anything more than some anonymous employee of NHS defending their employer, and some opinion of an unknown author. Is there any more than that to it? and why the anonymity?

Not sure where it is. I googled it and couldn't find it! You come across it due share!

 

[toomuchtime_]

The UK is coming out on the attack. They are stating the healthcare industry lobby representing a billion dollar industry that know Obama's plan will mean its death, is maliciously and recklessly defaming them.

Read the part about Steve Hawkings, who lives in London and supports the UK system. I think pundits have used great scare tactics in this debate to get falsehoods about socialized medicine out there.

Note: Did anyone think that maybe people have come to America for treatment because that doctor is the best in the field on it. I know people all over the world go to another socialized medicine country in Israel.

I know people all over the US flock to the doctors in LA, Chicago and NY! Why would that be? Because of certain doctors and not to flea a poor healthcare system, methink!


U.K. Hits Back at U.S. Health Reform 'Untruths' - Political News - FOXNews.com

Perhaps when Hawking said, "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he meant he would not be in a wheelchair today if it were not for the NHS. Maybe his meaning was that if he had had private insurance coverage in the US he might be walking around and talking today, perhaps even running marathons and singing opera. Maybe he was really wondering, "Why on Earth would the Americans consider trading in their very high quality health care system for one that put some one like me in a wheelchair?"

The problem is it is not high quality healthcare for everyone.

That's an important problem. Another important problem is the rising cost of health care, and another is the portability of health insurance, and there are others that are important, too, but this list of important problems does not constitute a health care crisis that requires hastily contrived bills to be passed out of committee before the summer recess so that they can be signed into law before the 2010 campaign season begins. The polls show that most Americans want to solve at least some of these problems, but they also show that most Americans do not support the solutions Obama is pushing or that are embodied in HR 3200. Advocates of this bill argue that if you don't support the bill you don't support change, but that is simply not true.

 

[EriktheRed]

Perhaps when Hawking said, "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he meant he would not be in a wheelchair today if it were not for the NHS. Maybe his meaning was that if he had had private insurance coverage in the US he might be walking around and talking today, perhaps even running marathons and singing opera. Maybe he was really wondering, "Why on Earth would the Americans consider trading in their very high quality health care system for one that put some one like me in a wheelchair?"

That is severely fuckin' stupid.


Here's the deal: the op-ed that started all this tried to use the Dr. Hawking to argue against public healthcare. It was a dumb move for obvious reasons. Investor’s Business Daily tried to run a "correction" of sorts by leaving out this sentence...

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.

...and saying...

Editor’s Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK.

...as if somehow that makes it all okay.

Problem is, the Hawking example was the lynchpin of this idiotic editorial in the first place. With the author's dumbass mistake and Hawking himself defending the British system (and yes, toomuchtime, that is what he's doing...deal with it), IBD should just quietly walk away from the piece, if not disawow it altogether. Instead they issue a half-assed "correction".

 

[toomuchtime_]

Perhaps when Hawking said, "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he meant he would not be in a wheelchair today if it were not for the NHS. Maybe his meaning was that if he had had private insurance coverage in the US he might be walking around and talking today, perhaps even running marathons and singing opera. Maybe he was really wondering, "Why on Earth would the Americans consider trading in their very high quality health care system for one that put some one like me in a wheelchair?"

That is severely fuckin' stupid.


Here's the deal: the op-ed that started all this tried to use the Dr. Hawking to argue against public healthcare. It was a dumb move for obvious reasons. Investor’s Business Daily tried to run a "correction" of sorts by leaving out this sentence...

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.

...and saying...

Editor’s Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK.

...as if somehow that makes it all okay.

Problem is, the Hawking example was the lynchpin of this idiotic editorial in the first place. With the author's dumbass mistake and Hawking himself defending the British system (and yes, toomuchtime, that is what he's doing...deal with it), IBD should just quietly walk away from the piece, if not disawow it altogether. Instead they issue a half-assed "correction".

What is severely stupid is responding seriously to my post that anyone who isn't dull witted and humorless would understand was intended as a joke. What part of your brain has to be defective for you to take the reference to Hawking running marathons and singing opera seriously? Clearly,it would be too much to ask even our first rate health care system to help you with your problems.

 

[EriktheRed]

Perhaps when Hawking said, "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he meant he would not be in a wheelchair today if it were not for the NHS. Maybe his meaning was that if he had had private insurance coverage in the US he might be walking around and talking today, perhaps even running marathons and singing opera. Maybe he was really wondering, "Why on Earth would the Americans consider trading in their very high quality health care system for one that put some one like me in a wheelchair?"

That is severely fuckin' stupid.


Here's the deal: the op-ed that started all this tried to use the Dr. Hawking to argue against public healthcare. It was a dumb move for obvious reasons. Investor’s Business Daily tried to run a "correction" of sorts by leaving out this sentence...




...and saying...

Editor’s Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK.

...as if somehow that makes it all okay.

Problem is, the Hawking example was the lynchpin of this idiotic editorial in the first place. With the author's dumbass mistake and Hawking himself defending the British system (and yes, toomuchtime, that is what he's doing...deal with it), IBD should just quietly walk away from the piece, if not disawow it altogether. Instead they issue a half-assed "correction".

What is severely stupid is responding seriously to my post that anyone who isn't dull witted and humorless would understand was intended as a joke. What part of your brain has to be defective for you to take the reference to Hawking running marathons and singing opera seriously? Clearly,it would be too much to ask even our first rate health care system to help you with your problems.

You were joking??


Sorry, after seeing so many "dull witted and humorless" con arguments on here, it gets hard to tell...

 

[toomuchtime_]

That is severely fuckin' stupid.


Here's the deal: the op-ed that started all this tried to use the Dr. Hawking to argue against public healthcare. It was a dumb move for obvious reasons. Investor’s Business Daily tried to run a "correction" of sorts by leaving out this sentence...




...and saying...



...as if somehow that makes it all okay.

Problem is, the Hawking example was the lynchpin of this idiotic editorial in the first place. With the author's dumbass mistake and Hawking himself defending the British system (and yes, toomuchtime, that is what he's doing...deal with it), IBD should just quietly walk away from the piece, if not disawow it altogether. Instead they issue a half-assed "correction".

What is severely stupid is responding seriously to my post that anyone who isn't dull witted and humorless would understand was intended as a joke. What part of your brain has to be defective for you to take the reference to Hawking running marathons and singing opera seriously? Clearly,it would be too much to ask even our first rate health care system to help you with your problems.

You were joking??


Sorry, after seeing so many "dull witted and humorless" con arguments on here, it gets hard to tell...

Perhaps my response was too personal. Sorry about that. It strikes me as bizarre that the Brits should become so exercised about what is being said about their NHS in an American political contest that they should organize and distribute fact sheets and begin contacting media outlets to to defend themselves and then drag Hawking out to testify. Imagine how busy we would be if the US responded that way every time politicians in some other country inaccurately described the way we do things. The issues are serious, but the antics being employed are clownish. I thought my little post struck just the right note of absurdity to fit in with the back and forth between the NHS defenders and its critics.

 

[Meister]

Here is the most interesting part I thought about the article!

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.

Could you show me where in the article where it stated the correlation between nationalized healthcare and infant mortality rate, life expectancy, and more?
You posted it, and I'm asking for it.

 

[Diuretic]

Republicans - lying? Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AllieBaba]

No link, no credibility.

The fact is, we have the highest survivor rate when it comes to cancer of any country in the world.

Mortality rates...that's based upon a whole different set of standards. We keep better records. Death rates in many countries in, say, Africa or rural China, aren't accurate because nobody records them.

 

[Diuretic]

No link, no credibility.

The fact is, we have the highest survivor rate when it comes to cancer of any country in the world.

Mortality rates...that's based upon a whole different set of standards. We keep better records. Death rates in many countries in, say, Africa or rural China, aren't accurate because nobody records them.

One thing I've noticed in the US is that - this is just a subjective view - that there seems to be much more public awareness of various health conditions and that's a good thing. Early detection is enhanced by that public awareness I would reckon.

Mortality rates are a bit iffy I would think, there are so many variables that I wonder if a meaningful comparison is possible. I suppose it is, but then I'm not a statistician so I have no idea of the wonders they can work with their knowledge.

 

[Chris]

No link, no credibility.

The fact is, we have the highest survivor rate when it comes to cancer of any country in the world.

Mortality rates...that's based upon a whole different set of standards. We keep better records. Death rates in many countries in, say, Africa or rural China, aren't accurate because nobody records them.

We have the highest survivor rate because most people get cancer after 65 years of age, and Americans have national health insurance after 65 years of age.

 

[tigerbob]

GHook - Regarding the claim that the British can't choose to pay for their own meds, do you know what the basis of that claim is? How have they arrived at this conclusion?

Its not true. You can get private health insurance (for a fraction of the cost of that for American insurance) to cover things that might not be covered by the NHC system (things that might not even be covered by American insurance)!

Actually, that's slightly misleading as well.

I believe that it is this para from the OP that was being referred to...

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.

You are correct that private health insurance gives access to a wider range of treatment, and faster access to such treatments. However, if the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) determines that a particular drug is not to be made available on the National Health Service, patients are not allowed to buy that course of treatment out of their own pockets if they want to continue to receive treatment on the NHS. NICE is responsible for evaluations (both medical and financial) of pretty much all drugs used by the NHS. This broad level of responsibility has led to accusations of conflict of interest and the charge that 'NICE' really stands for 'National Institute for Clinical Expediency'.

Essentially, NHS policy is that everyone should have access to the same levels of treatment regardless of ability to pay and that therefore those who wish to augment their NHS treatment with privately funded medication should be asked to pay for 100% of their future treatment, including the continuation of treatment that had until that time been received free on he NHS.

The issue first surfaced just over a year ago. This story explains it quite well, and without the embellishment that you will get in the U.S. media.

NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay - Times Online

There is no doubt that American politicians and political commentators (there's a pompous name for leeches) are cherry picking news stories whose slant supports their view on Obama's proposals. The NHS is neither as good nor as bad as it is painted in the American political arena. Then again, nor is virtually anything.