Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Sicko
I realise that Michael Moore is a bit of a propagandist. He has been vilified by many right-wingers, primarily because his propaganda is different than their own. Let's face it, anyone who feels passionately about a subject tends to bend facts and statistics to meet their own agendas.
But this one-minute thirty-second segment of his new film, Sicko does cause one to ponder. Maurene and I have both experienced the blessings of the NHS. Yes it is sometimes a bit bureaucratic, and Brits do like to complain. But they always complain about the NHS as a whole, while vehemently defending their local GP and local hospital. So, much of their dislike seems to be perceived instead of based on reality.
From a theological and political aspect, I simply believe that providing all of a nation's citizens with free (at the point of service) healthcare is a moral and ethical essential. Jesus went about healing. He didn't ask for insurance cards or bill for the service before or after the treatment. And more often than not, his healing was given to those who were poor and on the margins of society. Just one answer to WWJD! God bless the NHS!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Why is the video no longer available? Could it be because Mr. Moore wasn't being compensated? Follow the money. The only problem with a NHS is who, when, and at what level is care provided. Hospitals in Detroit, Buffalo, and Niagra Falls do a high percentage of surgeries on Canadians who can afford their procedures but can't get on the schedule at home. I doubt that Jesus would approve of a service that only cared for those who could afford to pay.
This is a topic I think about a lot. I admire the idea of providing health care to all people. It seems so, well, Christian. I have long thought that the riches nation on earth could afford to provide health care to its citizens. Over the years I have had o occasion to speak to Canadian citizens about their health care. These informal conversations are not scientific polling by any means. The responses I got were all positive. Nobody wanted to trade places with me with regard to health care. As one woman said, "We pay high taxes, but we don't ever have to worry about medical care."
I have heard about the masses of Canadians coming across the border to escape their country's health care that Bob mentions. I have always been curious about the source of that information. I assume these people must be among the wealthiest of Canadians. To pay out-of-pocket rates in the US requires a lot of jack!
I realize the Canadian system is not a utopia. It is true that there are delays in providing some treatment linked to the limitations imposed by the government on the number of specialists and the centralization of technology. Also, from a reimbursement standpoint, there are incentives for American hospitals to discharge patients as soon as possible. Canadian hospitals have fewer incentives to do tests and procedures as quickly and Canadian patients often have longer hospital stays. On the other hand, malpractice suits are rare in Canada. Canadian physicians do not have to practice defensive medicine, which always drives up costs.
I think it's interesting to note that the U.S. consistently spends a much higher percentage of its gross domestic product on health care than Canada does. Canadians pay higher taxes, but all Canadians, regardless of socioeconomic status receive the same level of health care. This fact can be a stumbling block to the egotistical among us, who demand some sort of enhanced or deferential treatment because we have acquired wealth. However, in Canada, physicians aren't limited by a patient's insurance coverage or ability to pay with regard to what tests or procedures that may be ordered -- they are free to order what they feel is needed. There is also substantially less paperwork in that system. Physicians are paid expeditiously. Payments are rarely refused. That part sounds good to those of us who have provided service per agreement with an insurance company and then had the insurance company refuse to pay. The downside for providers is that physician incomes are 25% - 50% less than their American counterparts. On the other hand, many of us have learned to get by on less than even that. But I digress. The benefit to the citizen is that they all have equal access to any hospital or physician in their province. They are never told they have come to the wrong hospital.
As I grow older and become more aware of how tenuous (and in some cases limited) my ability to access healthcare is, I would welcome the security of knowing that I would be guaranteed the same health services as anyone else, regardless of my employers health care plan, or lack of same.
Let me elaborate a bit more on our experience of the NHS. I hold in my hot little hands both Maurene and my last payroll statements. I pay £139 per month in National Insurance, Maurene pays £102. In US Dollars that comes to a total of $480 approx (lets round up to 500). That's $6000 per year. In the US just before we left our UCC insurance was $9,500 and we had $100 deductible and paid 20% of all medical bills and perscriptions.
The National Insurance cost is based on a percentage of income. Everyone is covered, and no one pays at the point of service. Perscriptions are a flat fee of £6.50 no matter what the drug. Maurene, because of her accident and the large amount of meds required pays nothing.
We have never had to wait for an appointment at our GP in London or in Bath. Maurene has received state of the art treatment from a pain consultant at St. Thomas's hospital in London. Our insurer refused to pay for those treatments in the US. With each successive treatment her pain has been significantly reduced and she now goes for several months between appointments.
Doctors aren't wealthy in the UK but they aren't hurting either. Most make in excess of £100,000 per year. I'd be quite happy to make a quarter of that. Some, work part-time whilst others work beyond the standard 36 hour week. That is the primary determiner of what they are paid.
The hospitals pale in comparison to their US counterparts, they don't invest alot in elaborate decor. Private rooms are at a premium. So, I guess that reflects a more socialist viewpoint of practicality and pragmatism over asthetics.
If I were rich, or had magnificent insurance, I would still prefer the US system. But, I'm not and never will be. Knowing that Maurene and I will be cared for if we get ill, without financial hardship, is a wonderful feeling. For that, I am most grateful.
Post a Comment