I Was an NHS Patient in Britain

(CBS)  I lived in London four years earlier this decade. I worked there for a large American firm. The company that hired me provided no corporate heath plan so my wife and I were served by Britain's National Health Service, (NHS).

Soon after arriving, I pulled a hamstring tendon. I could barely walk. I needed medical help. That first NHS visit frightened me. How far would I have to go? What kind of terrors awaited me in the waiting room? How long would it take? Knowing British bureaucracy, I wondered: How many yards of paperwork? How many probes and what-nots was I in for? What would it cost?

The answers went like this: Nearest emergency room: three blocks. The visit took 30 minutes. Paperwork: the one form required me to give address and NHS number. Not onerous. I got my leg wrapped, anti-inflammation pills, a cane and advice. Come back if there are problems. No heavy-duty x-rays or scans. Co-payment: 0.

Later I required a prescription. It wasn't an emergency. Appointment was made three days in advance. Cost: two pounds for the prescription. It would've run about $100 in the US. Doctor co-payment: 0.

Months later my wife had a painful foot condition. Her treatment was quick, pragmatic. No major surgery suggested. Diagnostics were kept reasonable. Again, no gigantic high tech scans were called into play. If a specialist had been needed, that would have required a three-four week wait. It all seemed reasonable, careful.

Brits don't have to use the NHS. They can choose to buy private insurance, like one couple we know. They trust the NHS but felt they shouldn't use public resources as they can afford to pay for their own medical services. Imagine, a social conscience where medical cost is concerned!

Could there be problems? Sure. But Britain's NHS works for a complex population, tens of millions. I now have two sons, two daughters-in-law and three grandchildren living in London. They all get NHS care. All three children were born in London hospitals. One son travels often in tropical countries. He returned to London with a mysterious intestinal problem. His treatment was prolonged, requiring specialists and repeated regimens. The NHS kept at it and now he's fine. Nobody threatened to drop him from the NHS. By contrast, back in the U.S. my wife was refused coverage by a highly-touted HMO. Why? They'd successfully treated her for breast cancer years before.

My wife's now on federally provided Medicare so her ancient history of breast cancer is no longer an insurance curse.

After we moved to Oregon, I needed private insurance. We were specifically warned about not admitting to a list of conditions that would disqualify us in the eyes of private insurers. Fortunately, I didn't have any. No past cancer or diabetes, for example.

Unlike the British population, we in America fall into a range of medical classes: the uninsurable who are sick, the class that can't afford insurance, And there are various classes of medical privilege: Congress, insurance CEOs, the wealthy, some federal and corporate workers, and prisoners. And my wife who has Medicare which sure beats private coverage.

In the hoopla over the American medical industry two points stand out: 1) In all the other nations with both an elected government and a developed economy, medical care is provided for nearly everyone; 2) The U.S. stands alone in letting taxpayers fend for themselves, unprotected, among opposing medical insurance schemes. And yet we pay more for this "freedom" than the NHS costs Britons.

By Harry Fuller
Special to CBSNews.com

[nick4343]

Any system you can devise will have problems. The system in Britain is disorganised but people really care. A very large number of people genuinely love the NHS see http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23WeLoveTheNHS. It's no wonder, if you are ill you may have to worry about losing earnings, but no one has to worry about medical bills. Can you imagine what it would be like if you never had to worry about a medical bill ever again? The motivation of medical staff is to treat you, make you better if you can, comfortable if that's not possible, not to make a profit.

Of course resources are limited and there will be some procedures or drugs that might be very costly and only prolong life a very small amount and these might not be used. We know that this happens, but I think these judgements are best made by independent caring experts who consider the good of society as a whole.

The US system is probably good if you are wealthy but it is grossly unfair if you are not. People aren't poor because they are stupid, they are often poor because they are deprived or unlucky. It can't be fair that they get punished by an unfair medical system.

I don't work for the Government or in medicine, though my daughter is an intensive care consultant in Australia. We lived in the US a long time ago.

My father and parents-in-law all died in NHS hospitals of untreatable conditions. They and we were treated not only with respect and care but with love. My father said in the week before he died that the quality of care made him "Proud to be British".

[dimonds2000]

READ THIS THEN:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml

from this website!

[toldyouso29]

THE DIFFERENCE: I am from England so I kind of sort of can tell you the HUGE difference between the social health care in Europe and the US. In Europe, the COSTS are capped. Doctors, Hospitals, medical device, health care workers and Big Pharm do not work on a capitalisitic scheme they work on a socialistic scheme.

This means the everyone can only make so much money. This keeps the costs down. Even American companies charge much less for their same meds in Europe--because the costs must be a lot lower. This is a HUGE difference.

Obama is not proposing controlling spending or what Drs, Hospitals and Big pharm makes. He is proposing letting them keep charging out of the wazoo and just making all of us join together to pay for it. As the English would say: That is the difference between "chalk and cheese" there is no comparison.

Don't look at the European or the Canadian model if there is no plan to rein in making those capitalist enterprises--because there is no comparison. The system runs great because it is controlled--but on the other hand, I also lived in Holland. They made me carry and deliver my dead baby until I delivered (your body will get rid of the tissue within a month or so after it dies) so I would not need a D and C. I got to go to the hospital for the ultrasound to see the baby had died, then I was sent back home to deliver and told to return in 3 weeks if I had not. I went through labor and delivered my dead child in the toilet, then had to scoop it out, wrap it up and take it to the hospital for examination and to determine if all the tissue had been removed.

Most child births are without pain meds at home with a doula or midwife to come and visit. Doctors make a lot less, antibiotic treatments are rare and if you have a terminal cancer, your option is to either get morphine or you can opt (in Holland) for killing yourself--or you can go to America or elsewhere for alternative treatment.

Holistic and alternative meds are huge in Europe and respected.

In 1995, salaries were taxed as high as 70% to pay for healthcare services.

you can never compare what Obama wants to do with England or Europe or even CAnada as long as Dr. and everyone else can charge whatever they like and no one is limiting what they charge. It does not work that way.

[simken214]

Your statement that "Holistic and alternative meds are huge in Europe and respected" is wrong with respect to the NHS. Alternative meds are not paid for by the NHS because it is impossible to prove value for money to NICE.

[toldyouso29]

I state it is respected in that practices and licenses are allowed and persons can get degreed in them and they can set up legitimate practices--something that is not allowed in the USA. Right now, there is no recognized degree in holistic medicine that can prescribe meds or even claim to provide therapeutic/health related care. Homeopathy, Nutropathy, acupuncture, herbalism, etc are considered weird hobbies in America and to practice, one cannot get a universal recognized degree or standard and people have to say they are providing lifestyle advice NOT claim to be providing health care--that is illegal. Only Allopathic medicine is recognized and respected in the US.

[simken214]

I can only think you visited the "European" area of Disney World. First, I am a life long Brit and have had to put up with the impersonal, filthy, antiquated NHS for 45 years. Second, I have private health insurance because I don't want to have to go to an NHS hospital for a "lifestyle" operation and die. You forgot to mention that the UK's Healthcare Commission has determined that 30,000 patients have died needlessly over the past 5 years in NHS hospitals from common infections. The couple you state have insurance because they want to keep down health costs can be the only ones in the UK. The rest of us have it so we can jump the queue in front of the 90% who don't and avoid infections since the private hospitals are infection free.

America, the NHS is BROKEN. Blair and the Labour Party have been trying to reform it for 11 years. Yes, it has lowered waiting lists and we have some new hospitals, BUT, it is still an unsympathetic monolith more concerned about having an easy life than serving the patient. 1000 patients died from easily avoided infection in ONE hospital. Staffordshire is the trust. Google it if you don't believe me. We are the laughing stock of Europe. Lowest quality, worst outcomes, no choice, lowest cancer survival rates, long waits, filthy hospitals, and staff who look upon patients as necessary evils.

The NHS is not as bad as you have heard. It is much much worse. I lived in the US for 3 years in the late 80's. Healthcare there isn't perfect but I didn't have to wait 2 years for a hernia operation or to have a knee replaced. Let's face it I don't have to wait now because I jump the queue because I can afford to, and the same doc who would have seen me in the NHS does the surgery privately for a lot of money. Is that the equality you want? You will trade a good system for one that completely ignores the patient and still have a two tiered system. The only difference is that a minority will receive good care. Don't believe the lies. There are many here that blindly protect the NHS on an idealistic basis and ignore the fact we are killing tens of thousands of our own people while we try and convince you we have a good system.

[hologram5]

Time to put ALL fed employees on private insurance and make them pay for it out of THEIR pocket. Let them see how much of a nightmare it is to have private insurance with the private insurance copays and them only paying part of the bill and leaving you holding the bag. The Fed Gov gets "FREE" health care thanks to us, the taxpayers. I am tired of paying for their health care.

[ubrew12]

I understand the reluctance of many Americans to enter into a healthcare system with much higher levels of government involvement, either in the form of more laws and oversight, or in the form of government run plans. But this is what has been done by every one of our capitalist trading partners, for the simple reason that it improves national competitiveness. These countries adopted 'socialized' or 'government regulated' healthcare decades ago to help their economies kick our butt, and its working.

I don't think the worlds largest debtor nation can afford to continue to turn up its nose at a potential savings of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR that would result in the prospect of, horror of horrors,
1. universal health coverage, and
2. Superior healthcare.

That $1 trillion in savings is simply based on the FACTS that the U.S. currently spends $2.3 trillion a year on healthcare, and currently spends TWICE as much for it as nations with single-payer nationalized healthcare.

Its a matter of national competitiveness. If we choose some lame-*ss 'solution' that doesn't really deal with the cost problem, or worse, if we do nothing at all (the GOP preferred solution), healthcare will continue to TANK this countries economy. The rich will continue to pay the price in lower business competitiveness and general outsourcing of businesses to other countries, and the poor will continue to pay the price with health-related bankruptcy and death.

Frankly, if you oppose single-payer nationalized healthcare, you oppose America EVER regaining her once-preeminent role as the worlds number ONE economy. And you should know that more and more of us are beginning to realize that you're holding us back.

[toldyouso29]

It works in Europe (actually it doesn't and most have supplemented with private health insurance and in some cases --Holland the government mandates that only the very poor can use the government program, it is phased out depending on how much you make but everyone must pay into it with it capping out at 70% tax on the highest salaries)

The HUGE difference is that the costs are severely controlled. America's Eli Lilly sells an anticancer drug called Vincristine in the states for about 10,000.00 per treatment. This same product is sold in other, socialized countries for around 1000.00 for the same treatment. This is why it is cheaper to go to Canada to get American medication, the costs are much less.

America is in a system that is capitalistic--this means "charge as much as the public will pay" Obama does not propose to change this aspect of health care costs--he proposes we all help to pay whatever the hospitals, doctors and Big pharm charges--supposedly reducing the costs by spreading the pain around--but it does not change the fact that for a treatment of say, bone cancer--in Europe the cost is about 2500.00 for a treatment and stay in the hospital vs around 45K for that same service and time in a US hospital (tests, MRIs, and hospital stay included) the difference is--you CANNOT look at a system which limits costs and salaries and services then makes the public all pay that system the same in which the Costs/salaries and services are not limited or contained.

No country in Europe is a capitalist country, they are socialist. And NO, socialism is not the same as communism. Socialist countries hold that the government must control some industries for the sake of the entire population--like healthcare and schooling and in some countries--energy operations. Capitalist says anything is for sale and charge as much as you can, then let the market and consumer sort it all out.

Such a system is NOT COMPATIBLE with socialized medicine--because the costs would go up and up and up until those who were making the most would rebel and simply quit working , recognizing that working was only subsidizing those who made a lot less.

If you want a single payer program, you also have to control HOW much is paid and how much is charged. Obama dares not touch the "free market " of pimping health care. So it will not work.

[ubrew12]

A recent EKOS poll (http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/0779-full-report-_august-13_.pdf) indicated that 87% of Canadians believe their health-care system is better than the U.S. model. Why? First, it's universal. Everyone is entitled to treatment and they get the same level of care as a multi-millionaire. By contrast, in the U.S. the rich can buy top care and jump to the head of the waiting line, while the poor are uninsured and die from lack of insurance. Second, visit the doctor and there's no fee. Americans pay through the nose at every step of their care and in fact, pay twice as much as Canadians per person. No Canadian winds up bankrupt because he or she had to pay for health care, which happens in the U.S., where private insurers often reject people with serious illnesses seeking coverage. Third, Canada's quality of care is unparalleled. Indeed, polls have consistently shown that more than 90% of Canadians are pleased with their level of care. In America, that number could NEVER be higher than 85%, since 15% of the population is uninsured, and aren't receiving ANY care at all. Top surgeons at Toronto-area hospitals are as good as any in the U.S., and they treat patients based on need, not the size of their bank accounts. Nurses and other health professionals are well-trained, too, with standards often exceeding those in the U.S. Fourth, many of Canada's medical outcomes top those in the U.S. Canadians live longer, their infant mortality rates are lower, their cancer and heart disease levels and the rate of low-birth weight babies, are better. Fifth, they often wait only several weeks to see a specialist. Wait times for many procedures, such as hip replacements, are dropping dramatically now that more money and attention have been focused on the problem. Sixth, Canadians know that part of their health dollars aren't going to line the pockets of fat-cat private health insurers, whose profits in the U.S. have equalled the total amount of money that Canada spends annually on health care for all its citizens.

[icjunior97]

Look I dont all the answers to the Health debate, nor does anyone else. The point is to debate and come up with something that will work. Is it going to be perfect-no nothing ever is. Will it be "Free"- no nothing ever is. Taxes will have to be higher to pay for a public system. That is just a fact. Yes France is rated the best for healthcare- but look at how much taxes they pay. We need to have people serious sit down and look at our system and fix what is actually wrong.

[Alienjr]

I find it enlightening that CBS was able to find the one person who actually had a GOOD experience with the NHS. The short wait times, the quick action of the health professionals, interesting that of all the stories available to CBS, THIS is the only one they choose to print. Maybe CBS should change their name to OBS?

[sandy19731]

And yet they supply this forum for anyone to tell their story. Let's have some testimonials with names as Mr. Fuller was willing to provide.

[fedup12]

LOL lots of insurance company paid lobbiest hacks in here today.