Is British-Style Health Care The Answer?

Critics Of Public Health Care Point To Problems In Britain, Where Government Has Provided Health Care For Decades

(CBS)  Mary Brewis has been battling colon cancer for 6 years.

She's still alive because of the care she got under Britain's National Health System, and more recently, in spite of that same system's bureaucratic rules.

"I really thought it would care for me from cradle to grave," Brewis said.

Like everyone here - Brewis is automatically covered by public health insurance.

"All that treatment, the surgery, and the consulting and the hospital stays - you didn't put out money for that?" asked CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer.

"No, no," Brewis said. 'That was all on the National Health."

The NHS was set up 60 years ago to guarantee that everyone in the United Kingdom would have health care, but over the years complaints have grown over long waits and poor service.

Under fierce pressure to improve - the NHS annual budget was tripled over the past decade. Now, Britain spends just over $2,700 per person on health care, compared to an average $6,700 in the U.S. And a recent survey shows 90 percent of British patients rated their NHS care as good to excellent.

But it's not perfect, as Brewis discovered when the cancer spread to her lungs, and the NHS said it wouldn't pay for an experimental drug to shrink her tumors.

"You get people who are desperate for the best drug that is available worldwide," said Michael Summers, the vice-chairman of the Patients Association. "But the government body has said, 'Hey, look, we can't always afford these drugs.' Because it might extend your life by six months, but is it going to save your life? This sort of attitude can creep in. It is most unfortunate and heart rending."

Brewis has lost two appeals so far, and had to borrow money to pay almost $2,000 a week for the drug - and a private nurse.

"The time that I have left with my family is very, very precious, and what makes it very difficult is that we are now, as a couple, as a family, are spending virtually all our time trying to fight this bureaucracy," Brewis said.

Dr. Karol Sikora, a British cancer specialist, became the unknowing poster boy for a series of ads made by a U.S. lobby group opposed to public health insurance. In fact, Dr. Sikora does believe in Britain's universal public system, but he says it can be wasteful, inefficient and unfair.

"If I could chose one system today, I would chose the British system over the American, if I was an average American," Sikora said. "Having said that, I think there is a huge opportunity for the Obama administration to design something that is completely novel."

Sikora advocates a mixture of public and private insurance - the competition acting to ensure efficiency and make sure cost-cutting doesn't deny patients like Brewis innovative drugs.

"I just, I feel I have a right to live as long as I can possibly live," Brewis said. "Everybody does. Nobody should be allowed to say that somebody has lived long enough and they can't live any longer."

No one would argue with that - the constant challenge is to deliver on a limited budget.

[rlindley0]

This report was biased as it compared the British National Health Service to US health care. It showed a patient denied an experimental drug for treatment of terminal cancer. The report should have included the information that practically all US health plans and US health insurance bureaucrats would also have denied coverage for an experimental drug treatment for a similar patient.

[snoopy28173]

I hope we NEVER get universial health care. I have multiple condations that all require medical treatment. One can need treatment urgently, and being put on the wait list could be fatal. $2,700 would not even scratch the surface of my care.

Besides, who is the goverment to play judge, jury, and executioner with health care?

Something needs to be done to reign in the costs, but not by universial health care.

[John_Merritt]

Having worked in the healthcare industry for a LONG TIME, i want to make a recommendation that no one has proposed yet. I propose that we cut out the middle man (health care providers) altogether and deal or contract directly with the hospitals, who can create their own hospital network health care plans more efficiently and effectively.

Everybody benefits, reduces red tape, reduces fraud, reduces approvals, and increases the revenues directly generated by hospitals and reimbursement issues can be mediated more effectively.

Oh by the way, the consumer will pay far less, there will be greater system efficiencies because hospitals have a direct responsibility and accountability to their own 'shareholders'. It is not that difficult and is a win-win for everyone except for one group: Health care insurers. Too bad, so sad.

[John_Merritt]

Having worked in the healthcare industry for a LONG TIME, i want to make a recommendation that no one has proposed yet. I propose that we cut out the middle man (health care providers) altogether and deal or contract directly with the hospitals, who can create their own hospital network health care plans more efficiently and effectively.

Everybody benefits, reduces red tape, reduces fraud, reduces approvals, and increases the revenues directly generated by hospitals and reimbursement issues can be mediated more effectively.

Oh by the way, the consumer will pay far less, there will be greater system efficiencies because hospitals have a direct responsibility and accountability to their own 'shareholders'. It is not that difficult and is a win-win for everyone except for one group: Health care insurers. Too bad, so sad.

[thatchmo62]

I'm not sure I beleive the 90% rating or good or excellent. Just read the comments sections on any healthcare related story in British news sites. Most of the comments are from British citizens complaining about their lousy health care, the long waits and especially, the beauracracy. What we need to do is look at the all of the healthcare systems in the world and figure out what works and what doesn't. If the Irish system is so responsive, as one poster claims, what makes it work where the other systems don't? The bottom line is that we need to cover all of our citizens with basic healthcare at affordable costs.

[rdupuy11]

The system is absolute garbage and Obama isn't even going to fix it, but make it worse.

When you are 'covered' under private health insurance, that gives you the right to pay $200 per month into a system, and not use it.

You cannot use it because you cannot afford the deductable and 20% co-pay, especially when you realize the amount you pay is inflated for the insurance rate, compared to the cash rate. In other words, you still pay 20% out of pocket, in theory, and about 40% of the cash rate, which you can no longer afford because $200 per month is already draining your budget.

And Obama was clear, even if you didn't quite catch it...in his town hall meeting, he is going to force the insurance carriers to cover pre-existing, and in exchange for that, he is going to deliver young people - their heads on a platter.

The reason is, its a bad deal, to pay $200 per month, $2400 per year, for insurance, when you cannot use it.

Its a horrible deal for young people, thats why they go uninsured...1, they are generally healthy, and 2, $2400 in cash, buys you a whole lot more actual health coverage than insurance does.

But he's going to require by law for people who don't need health insurance to join the system, because this is where the money is comign from to pay for the pre-existing.

Yes, he was quite clear about it.

Don't be confused, they aren't...they know exactly that young people need less health insurance than the elderly...most and I mean the vast majority of costs in the system are from 2 areas...preventable sicknesses, mostly related to obesity, and end of life care.

This massive tax on the young, is going to make things hard.

We don't need a system that 'technically' covers people. At least devise a system, where at least I can actually go to the Doctor.

I'm an american, when I need dental, I just get my teeth removed, I cannot afford bridges and other expensive things. When I had an ear infection, I just waited painful weeks for it to go away, who can afford to get antibiotics, when it takes a Doctor's visit to get a prescription.

Thats the reality for 10's of millions.

[riddelup]

Try getting your HMO to pay for an experimental drug or procedure. Not only that but your HMO usually has limits on legitimate non experimental treatments.

[whatsup49]

ya know, we sorta kinda already have universal health care system in place for our military and military retirees. my dad is an air force retiree with 40 years of service, and he never, ever has had to wait for medical care through the military hospital where he lives. whenever he's in the hospital, all he pays is $6.95 per day, and that is for his meals. when he was critical and on a respirator and unable to eat, he wasn't charged. his meds for his heart, diabetes and other ailments, and their related equipment, such as a glucose monitor, strips, and insulin needles, are free. his wife, my stepmother, receives her care through tricor. she has a primary care doctor, plus specialists, and never pays more than $15 for a doctor visit, and most of her meds are filled at the base hospital, for very low copays. the meds that are filled at off-base pharmacies cost about $15 each. when she was critically ill a number of years ago, she was hospitalized off-base for nearly 4 months. the cost to my parents, $1,000 copay for the entire time she was hospitalized.

if this works well for our military and retirees, why can't a similar plan work for everyone else?

[govtguy]

Isn't it a total shame and public embarassment nationally, that for all the "brains" we have elected to serve US; these arguments still exist? Would it not be smarter, practical, logical, efficient, etc, to merge the best of the programs or at least willingly and honestly sit and act, even on a temporary measure? Obviously the needs of the politicians and the drug and insurance companies come before the needs of the people. Please Mr President, lock these folks in a large room, with no food, water, or restroom, and see how fast they can come up with a viable plan; afterall its been over 50 plus years in the works!

[getg]

As an American citizen currently living in France I can tell you that it is possible to have a functioning medical system that covers all and has choice and quality treatment. We have it here but you don't hear much about it because it is France and the prejudice about anything French runs deep in America. However, similar to Canada, we pay a social tax which is dependent on income (fair) and get coverage that pays more for serious illness and less for elective or non-serious illness (moral and ethical). We have choice and no government person decides, it is your doctor and you. If everyone is in a similar system, then the need for emergency room care for a bad cold is non-existent. The system negotiates far lower prices for the same drugs we have in America but at a fraction of the cost. It is sad that the mis-information surrounding this topic is so great for so long that so many people believe the propaganda circulated by pharma companies, insurance companies, and fools on the right who have no idea what they are talking about.
Private insurance in America is the tax you are already paying and it runs into thousands a year to have. Then you fight with the insurance company you paid and hopefully you have never had an existing condition that might invalidate your coverage. If you are lucky enough to have this high priced flawed insurance, and then you get sick, you will lose it immediately after treatment. Then what???

[rhs648]

by ubrew12 June 28, 2009 7:11 PM PDT
Our support of universal healthcare extends especially to rural folks, many of whom are NOT republican.

"when Democrats in the blue states realize that they are paying higher taxes to subsidize health care for workers in... red states".
News flash sparky: universal healthcare will save $400 million a year in administrative costs over private insurance, meaning EVERYONE's premiums will drop. That's what happens when you buy in bulk, and don't let insurance executives slice you into bits and pieces, to pick off the weak for their personal profit.

----------------

Voodoo math. Insure another 47 million people and save $400 million dollars per year. Two can use the word "sparky." Sparky, you need lessons on economics. There is no way to insure everyone without large increases in both raxes and premiums and/or reducing benefits. Sparky-Americans will be paying for universal health insurance in ways they haven't even thought of yet. Unless you are poor, expect big increases in out of pocket costs. Those increased costs will shrink any savings that bulk purchasing provide. And, sparky, what happens if employer paid insurance benefits become taxable to help pay for universal health care. Just more taxes on working people.

[ubrew12]

rhs648 said: "Americans will be paying for universal health insurance in ways they haven't even thought of yet."

Well thats convenience for you, it means you don't have to think of them. No, my $400 million figure was AFTER enrolling the 45 million uninsured. Healthcare in America costs TWICE what it does in these other countries with universal healthcare, because one out of every three healthcare dollars spent in America goes into administrative costs. The administrative figure in Canada is 1%. Why spend money figuring out who is covered, and for what, when everyone is covered? And thats the math for you, sparky.

[erasmus111]

by mccain08nc June 28, 2009 6:30 PM PDT

Lets ask the question "would you still want this government plan if it means you pay higher taxes and get less coverage" since we all know this is what is going to happen to the 60% of Americans who pay taxes and have coverage right now.


In Canada, you pay your $50 a month, slightly higher taxes, everything is covered, good quality care, and everyone is covered. AND it's way cheaper than what you are paying.

Goes to show how much you're being ripped off, doesn't it?

[rhs648]

Universal health care could prove to be a big boon (blessing) to the Republican party. Alec Macgillis had a column in a recent Washington Post article. He pointed out that the red states, mostly in the west and south, have most of the uninsured people. There, wages are lower, unions are weaker, and fewer employers provide health insurance. Mr. Macgtillus points out that blue states (Democratic) will be taxed heavily to subsidize health care in the red (Republican)states. Think of the impact when Democrats in the blue states realize that they are paying higher taxes to subsidize health care for workers in the red (Republican) states. There is a great chance that blue state voters will be voting Republican in the future. Those in the red states already vote Republican. Wow! What an opening for the Republicans in future elections. Thank you President Obama.

[eightsigma]

"There is a great chance that blue state voters will be voting Republican in the future."

No, we Democrats think everyone deserves decent healthcare without the threat of bankruptcy. Even Republicans. I don't mind paying more taxes to provide healthcare for ungrateful Republicans.

[ubrew12]

Our support of universal healthcare extends especially to rural folks, many of whom are NOT republican.

"when Democrats in the blue states realize that they are paying higher taxes to subsidize health care for workers in... red states".
News flash sparky: universal healthcare will save $400 million a year in administrative costs over private insurance, meaning EVERYONE's premiums will drop. That's what happens when you buy in bulk, and don't let insurance executives slice you into bits and pieces, to pick off the weak for their personal profit.

[toobigtofail]

it seems that the the people against a public health care system center their arguments on whether or not people who are very very sick get very expensive and extraordinary drugs and procedures from the government that they may OR MAY NOT get from a private insurance provider

mean while 40 million americans have no health insurance...nothing... and another 40 million or more like me pay a lot of money each month for coverage that leaves huge co-pays, huge limits to coverage and large monthly premiums

id take a canadian or british style system and accept triage and accept that i wont get million dollar procedures, and in exchange id be sure to get good, full basic coverage for reasonable cost

insurance companies and their accountants take 30% of our health care dollar and use much of that to employ cadres of bureaucrats to deny us coverage

the us health care system is a cash cow for insurance companies, big pharma and overpaid doctors, who by the way are major stock holders in the insurance and pharma companies

it kinda reminds us of how we got financially screwed by the bankstas on wall street, dont you think?

[John_Merritt]

If we are going to go the route of the Brits, can I make one recommendation? Could we at least have an improved dental plan than what they enjoy? (Trying to be funny in an otherwise sad situation).

[skyk-2009]

No one is suggesting doing the English Plan. The Article is about how the Confederate Party has been LYING to us again... claiming what the President is proposing IS the English Plan. Then they try to scare everyone by telling them how bad that plan is. I mean we should ALL know this by now, after all they've been doing this for 3 DECADES while our Health Care has become the WORST in the World.

[johninpennsyl]

What health care system is worse than having nothing? My wife and I,who have worked all our lives,and lost our jobs in the economic downturn-now have no health insurance.We paid taxes,and got what?
Britain,Canada and France have systems that work,way better than nothing-quit sucking the insurance companies and JUST DO IT.

[jsf14]

"make sure cost-cutting doesn't deny patients like Brewis innovative drugs." What plan, private or public, anywhere in the world pays for every experimental drug? Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the better. No plan we institute will be perfect. But we have several options for better health care than what we have now. The British system is one such option. Their dr's offices and hospitals are much less luxurious than ours, but their health is better and their cost per person is much less.

[california64]

Yeah, the "national health" is great but you should get a look at the "national taxes" that go with it...

[skyk-2009]

I think they have and I think the British pay HALF what we pay out for their National Plan. What's wrong? You listened to Rush so long you can't operate a Search Engine?

[ramos1129]

I have been under the Federal Employee Health Plan ("FEHP")as an employee and as a retiree since 1975. This is the way it basically works:

1. There are a number (currently about 25) of insurance providers ("IP") in the FEHP. They ranged from national providers such as Aetna to local hospital plans. The feds screen them to insure their credentials.
2. Each November, these IPs compete for my business. I evaluate them for price, how much hassle they give me, and what they offer by way of services and whatever else I deem important.
3. I then go with the one I think best for me and my family. If I feel I have made a wrong choice in IP, tough. I have to stay with that IP until the subsequent November.
4. Under all of these plans, I am free to chose whatever doctor and hospital I want. It should be noted that all of these plans try to negotiate rates with the medical profession (doctors, hospitals, etc)and they do recommend those professionals. However, I am free to go outside of their system should I want to.

Everything I have read tells me that the Obama administration wants to pattern their plan after the FEHP (why reinvent the wheel?). Anybody that has a health plan already will be free to stay with that plan or go to the "FEHP" plan.

What is wrong with the above??

[incog-nito]

This article is misleading. No, Britain-style health care is NOT the answer. Britain's health professionals are state employees. This is the definition of socialized medecine. On the other hand, there are numerous other universal health care system where doctors and other health professionals work in the PRIVATE sector, but get reimbursed by the government (not unlike Medicare). People get the peace of mind of being protected from catastrophic health issues and from going bankrupt, but can still buy supplemental private health insurance if they want. To CBS: Don't focus on a single country's system and make a judgment on it. Do your homework.