National Health Service Unpopular
Samizdata has a post up about the unpopularity of Natioinal Health Services Hospitals (NHS) with British soldiers. Quoting from the linked article on the problem:Soldiers on operations say they would rather receive a more serious injury and go to the top American military hospital in Ramstein, Germany, than end up in a NHS hospital.
They now half jokingly refer to getting "a Boche rather than a Blighty" in reference to the wounds that would send them home. Ramstein has an outstanding unit for brain surgery, and neurological intensive care beds in Britain are in short supply. "The blokes see it that if you are unlucky you get wounded and go to the UK at the mercy of the NHS, but if you get a head wound you get sent to Ramstein in Germany where the US has an outstanding medical facility," said an officer serving in Afghanistan.
"It also does not do morale much good knowing that within 18 hours of being wounded you could wake up in a NHS hospital with a mental health patient on one side and an incontinent geriatric on the other."
Posts
8 comments:
So the problem is that in National Health Service u find yourself with patients that are not your age?
How is that different than any private hospital?
How do you pay for health care? u recently complained u couldn't afford a computer.
Is it better for a person to wait until his medical problem is sever before turning to doctors? rather than have the person go when the problem is treatable and save his life (and the cost of a severe illness to the state)?
We live pretty much hand to mouth, but my first mate has health insurance from her job.
The problem with National Health Service is that they give bad service.
Once the service is provided by the government soverign immunity kicks in and redress for grievances is very difficult. In America we have an army of laywers to keep the medical guys straight.
In fact you have given me an idea for a piece. Thanks!
If Israel did not have social services for its citizens, it would break apart in a second. From a security point of view this is very important. Also seen in "bowling for columbine" about the connection between health care and community.
National Health level of service is determined by the people and government.
When an American is afraid to go to a doctor because of the cost, his illness gets worse, he stops being a productive citizen and the the government sponsors his medical care. What is the logic of it?
Not only u have an "army of lawyers," u also have an army of insurance clerks that check that patients are not exceeding their plan.
All I know about American health care is from TV, but it seems that an army of lawyers, clerks, and other unproductive people is a big waste.
teapot,
Absent a good market mechanism due to third party payers, lawyers serve the function of keeping the system honest.
When government runs the health service you get the problem without the recourse to lawyers.
With a third party system you have two choices - high prices or bad treatment. America has high prices yet even the poor get service.
I think that is better than low prices and bad service.
YMMV
I'm not sure who scares me more lawyers or doctors. It seems to me that a poor person, or someone that lost their job due to illness in America will get bad health care. Anyway I wish you good health. I enjoy reading your posts.
teapot,
Don't believe all that lurid stuff about American medicine you read in the Euro papers. The French let 10,000+ die due to the lack of air conditioning and fans and a program to keep an eye on the elderly. In Chicago the 50 to 100 deaths among the poor and elderly caused by a recent heat wave was a huge scandal. The poor (if they are interested) get excellent medical care.
They can wind up with huge bills, but no one expects them to pay.
I'll take excellent care and a huge debt over the alternative.
I don't believe a doctor will see a person for free. And if he does, he will not give his patient "excellent care". I once saw OReilly say that he gives to charity, but he is not willing to pay for his neighbors health problems.
Those "huge bills" are paid, not by the poor person, but by the tax payers.
What about this person's children? They are now also a burden on the state.
To a European or Israeli it would seem strange not to get health care from the state.
I once saw on Oprah that most bankruptcies in America are not cause of credit card debt, but medical debts.
As far as I know the US military gives health insurance for life. They know it helps create loyalty.
The gov should want the citizens of the state to be productive taxpayers, and fix'm up fast whenever a problem comes up so they can go on putting money in the treasury.
teapot,
Doctors see people for free all the time.
We even have local government sponsored clinics that charge on a sliding scale. What ever you saw on O'Rielly was not representative.
As to best care? Well compared to 100 years ago it is pretty good. Second class? Sure why not? You want extra ammenities (a private room and gourmet meals) you pay extra. The profits compensate for the folks who are just getting the basics in service.
However, the level of care by a Dr. is pretty equal. If it wasn't there would be lawyers all over the case. Malpractice lawyers don't care if you are rich or poor. Only if your doctor and hospital are.
OK hugh bills are paid by the taxpayer in Europe for everybody. In America the taxpayers only pay for those with economic difficulties. Tell me which system is more likely sustainable?
And your point about bankruptcy - it looks to me like it is serving its purpose. A fresh start for those who have been crushed.
I like our low unemployment and our economic growth. How is Europe doing?
Post a Comment