Faced with the debate over President Obama’s project to overhaul American health care, I’m finding it difficult to maintain the impartiality required of an ABC Current Affairs presenter.

I’ve had rather a lot of care from what the Americans call “socialised medicine”, here and in the UK – in fact without it, I’d be dead several times over – and some of the things that have been said against it strike me as plain ridiculous.

We’ll come to my own experience shortly, but first a taste of what I mean about the American debate. According to Sarah Palin, for example, the Obama plan will involve a system of sinister committees – “death panels” - which will decide whether the old or infirm have the right to live or die.

No proof has been produced for this remarkable accusation, and even Palin’s defenders, like John McCain, have been luke-warm: the best he could offer was that reform “at least opens the door to a possibility of rationing and decisions ...  such as are made in other countries”.

Yet the death panel notion has taken a firm hold in middle America, especially among the middle-aged and elderly, and anyone who supports healthcare reform finds it difficult to be heard. Here’s just one of the many rowdy “Town Hall” meetings where debate has consisted largely of shouting and abuse.

Most absurd of all was an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily which claimed that “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”.

Now Stephen Hawking, as most people know, is not just the world’s best-known theoretical physicist, but also its most famous sufferer from Motor Neurone Disease. Diagnosed with it in the early 1960s, he was given only a few years to live. He has defied those predictions for more than four decades with the help of Britain’s National Health Service, and he said so: “I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS,” he told The Guardian. “I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.” 

Investor’s Business Daily did publish a correction, but an obscure one, merely acknowledging that Stephen Hawking lived in Britain.

A lie is halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on, and the impression many Americans have of systems like the NHS, and Australia’s Medicare, is of a terrifying faceless bureaucracy mainly concerned with denying and rationing health care to a few. On the American left, by contrast, you might get the impression from such as Michael Moore in his film “Sicko” of the NHS as a system of utopian perfection, guaranteeing speedy and luxurious care for all.

Neither extreme is true: but the system I have encountered, while it has major flaws, does have one massive advantage for the seriously ill: you can be sure that you will not be faced with the choice of ‘bankruptcy or death’.

I became ill in Britain in 1994, not long after an assignment for the ABC in Rwanda and Zaire.

The disease I had contracted proved exceptionally difficult to diagnose – it’s rare, and presents a varying range of symptoms.  After several visits, my National Health Service doctor had the sense and humility to confess himself beaten, and sent me to London’s Hospital for Tropical Diseases. There, also on the NHS, I was tested exhaustively for every known tropical disease.

If I’d been in America, I’d have already have spent thousands – in Britain I’d spent nothing.

But this was also where one of the failings of the NHS kicked in: long waiting-lists. The Tropical Disease doctors discharged me with instructions to see another specialist, but when I rang him I discovered he couldn’t see me for six weeks. My condition was deteriorating fast, so when the ABC’s Dr Norman Swan got on the phone from Sydney to offer help, I jumped at it. He got to work and within a day had made an appointment for me with the doctor who would go on to save my life.

Insured by the ABC, I ended up spending almost six months in hospital. I was in a private ward, but treated in a National Health Hospital. The food was better in the private ward, and I had privacy, but I am certain that the treatment was the same. My doctors were sparing time for me out of their public rounds.

My illness is a long story, which has not yet found its ending, but back here in Australia I continue to get the best care. My specialist, a brilliant professor at Sydney’s Prince of Wales Hospital, takes no private patients, so for the last 12 years I have been treated on Medicare. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) has subsidised the many drugs I have had to take.

Without all of this public medicine, in the American system for instance, I believe I would be dead, or dead broke, or both. Is that an exaggeration, on a par with Sarah Palin’s “death panels”? I think not. 

Why? In the American system, you’re all right in theory if you’ve got a steady job, because your employer sponsors your health insurance.

But what many Americans don’t know is the limitation of that insurance in case of long-term illness.

After 90 days off work, the employer ceases to have any obligation to pay for your insurance. Under an Act called COBRA, you can extend the insurance (at your own considerable expense), but only for 18 months. After that, as I understand it, you are no longer covered by health insurance at all. Nor can you take out a new policy, because insurance companies won’t cover those with ‘prior conditions’. 

Small wonder, then, that 62 percent of bankruptcies in the USA are linked to medical bills.

And small wonder, as Nick Kristof of the New York Times wrote this week, that the American system is wreaking heartbreak on families faced with the choice of health care or poverty.

The USA spends more than 15% of its GDP on health care. Australia and Britain spend just over 8%, When it comes to looking after the seriously and chronically ill, I think I know which nations get better value. Britain’s NHS and Australia’s Medicare are not perfect – far from it. But they’re not the Orwellian monsters of American myth either.

Hillary Clinton failed to overhaul the American system when she tried in the early nineties. Was she defeated by the big drug companies, the insurance industry, or just the deep historical suspicion many Americans have for big government in any form? Impossible to say for certain, but what is clear is that Barack Obama now faces the same forces, and the early indications are that he’s not going to find them any easier to deal with.

Most commented

45 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:23am | 02/09/09

      “I’m finding it difficult to maintain the impartiality required of an ABC Current Affairs presenter.”

      Oh, great. Now I’ve got coffee all over my monitor.

    • Kristin Moore says:

      07:42am | 02/09/09

      Shall I try a constructive comment?

      I have been trying to follow the debate in America.. really.. I have tried.. but I find it virtually impossible to get a grip on it. The ‘Town Hall’ meetings and hysterical interviews on Fox channels seem to dominate everything and there seems to be no rational debate. I’m sure there is, somewhere, but its hard to find.

      Meanwhile, as a bit of a music fan, I follow a lot of musos and bands on twitter and facebook and read a fair bit of music press. Barely a week goes by without a plea to donate to a fund to pay for someone’s medical treatment in the US. I guess, by virtue of their profession, musicians are fairly unlikely to carry the type of health insurance one would have in the US if one were employed in a ‘real’ job. One of the most recent is an attempt to raise $100,000 for Chi Cheng, the Deftones bassist who was the victim of a car accident. Another, last week, was for the drummer of a rising band who had broken his leg and needed $10,000 to pay for treatment. The band Janes Addiction had a long running fund raising drive for a young boy who needed heart surgery, the sister of one of their fans.. sadly the boy died recently.

      Each time I read one of these stories, I have a moment of thankfulness for our system - with all its flaws. I’ve been lucky to be healthy, but I did have my son on medicare, with no private obstetricians etc, and couldn’t have asked for better treatment for a difficult pregnancy and birth.

    • Colin Campbell says:

      08:03am | 02/09/09

      Having experienced UK, US, Singapore and Australian public health systems, I would say that if you are employed by a fair employer and don’t have a traumatic or complicated event, then the systems broadly deliver the same service. It is when you fall out of the system or can’t get into the system in the US that you are stuffed. As for rationing, of course there is rationing in the US. Those who can pay or have someone else pay and those who can’t.

      Currently I am being treated here in Australia following a fall with gashed up hands and related infection. Costs to date and likely final costs are $5 for a co pay for a prescription. Nurses come to my house twice a day to dress wounds and administer antibiotics. In the US, this service would not be available and out of pocket expenses would be in the hundreds or thousands.

      My family has had a similar experience with those unexpected health events.

      That said, I have also experienced health care in Nepal, India and the Philippines. I understand some of the constraints that poorer countries have in delivering health services. Surely America with all that wealth can do better for all those people either not insured or under insured?

    • coxie says:

      08:11am | 02/09/09

      I think back to the time twelve years ago when I nearly relocated to the US for a three year project but, as it turns out most fortuitously, I didn’t.

      It was a time when HMO’s were all the go, as I think they still are over there, when a news article struck me, quite alarmingly, because it amounted to stating that you needed to get three quotes for any medical procedure before being considered for approval by the HMO.

      Well, having an ailment or two, certainly weighed heavy on my mind, and affordable, health insurance was probably the deciding factor in my decision not to go because , like you, the U(ninsured) S(tupidity) of A(nyone) over there would send you broke or beat you senseless.

    • Peter says:

      08:14am | 02/09/09

      And when every tin-pot Thrid World Socialist dictator gets sick, where do they go for treatment?  The USA.

      Medicine in the US is expensive, because they are the best; they do the research and development, and they take the risks.  If you want a society of freebie clinics which are good at removing ingrown toenails but not much else, then that’s fine.

      But better to have a system which produces real life saving technology and advances than one which wallows in mediocrity.

      Also, as you yourself noted:

      “My condition was deteriorating fast, so when the ABC’s Dr Norman Swan got on the phone from Sydney to offer help, I jumped at it. He got to work and within a day had made an appointment for me with the doctor who would go on to save my life.”

      When markets are rationed, cronyism runs rife.  It’s not what you know, but who you know.

      What happened to the person you displaced from the queue?  Or is the life of an ABC presenter more important than the life of an African immigrant to Britain?

    • Don says:

      08:19am | 02/09/09

      Your comment about impartiality was pretty funny.

    • drmick@hotmail.com says:

      09:20am | 02/09/09

      Spot on. I am a nurse with over 30 years service in the NSW Health Sytsem, (now cistern), both Public and Private. Howard has allowed the same trash that have detroyed health in America into Australia, causing health to rise to over 15% of GDP, as we pay the profits of the huge, greedy, amoral, unethical american drug companies. Coincidentally, the only opposition to our Public Health System has been tfrom the greedy, amoral, unethical surgical specialists in our own country, who surprise surprise, also benefit from the public purse and force the GDP ever higher. A perfect example is the Orthopaedic Surgeons who went on strike and withdrew services from the System. Means test the people who use the system, withdraw Federal funding to all but non profit private funds, and let the greedy, unethical amoral rubbish eat each other in the scramble.

    • Rudi says:

      09:21am | 02/09/09

      Likewise I have marvelled at what would have happened to me if I lived in America. For the last two years I have required hospitalisation about once every 6 weeks for about 3 to 5 days and regular consultations with specialists trying to work out what is going on. I have a high level of private insurance but tend not to use it as when I do I am presented with bills for hundreds of dollars over and above the thousands that my private insurer has paid. The level of care between the public and the private system has been similar though I have noticed over servicing in the private system: for example if I am treated in the private system my hospital stays tend to be 2 days longer than in the public system, the food better and I get a private room. While the last two are nice the reality is that I cannot justify the cost of them given the financial strain posed by being off work. 

      The claim by Peter above that the reason why medicine in the USA is the expensive is because it is best is unfortunately not borne out by statistics. The New Yorker recently had a great piece looking at why some districts have very high health costs and showed that there was no correlation with health outcomes (to the contrary actually) but high overservicing by doctors.

      While the public system is great for acute cases it falls down for chronic injuries like hip replacements. People wait too long and adverse consequences are caused.

      Dictators may like the USA health system but if the best that can be said about it is that dictators like it then I reckon something has to give.

      R.

    • Dave says:

      09:23am | 02/09/09

      So, did you actually read what Sarah Palin said, and her reasons for saying it ?  or like most did you just digest the main stream media summary that included no background and make conclusions based on that ?

      If you are going to try and make a point, and get taken seriously, maybe try and do more research first rather than just throwing in cheap shots at Sarah Palin, which only has the benefit of winning a popularity contest.

    • Jo says:

      09:24am | 02/09/09

      It frightens me for the sake of normal americans that these reforms won’t get through - and it’s looking less and less likely that President Obama will have success.

      If people haven’t seen the “30 days” show from the guy who did Super Size Me where he and his wife tried to live for 30 days on minimum wage and encountered health problems… they should.

      All is ok as long as you have money and a job in the US, but when the wheels fall off, they REALLY fall off.

    • Jake Zanoni says:

      09:51am | 02/09/09

      Of course big pharma and the insurance companies like the current US system, it benefits big pharma and the insurance companies.  It is a shockingly corrupt and bloated system; a perfect case study for public choice theory economics.

      Republican talking heads like to bleat on about the evils of ‘socialised medicine’ but the US already has it.  Medicare, Medicaid, mandatory insurance at the state level.  Subsidies, and regulations.  There is a reason that big pharma and insurance companies are big doners.  The death panels thing is also rubbish.

      People like Michael Moore are also full of crap.  The NHS and socialised medicine in Australia are no picnic either.  As the author said, both sides lie.

      I don’t think the authors example is a pretty good story to use to illustrate the benefits of NHS.  ‘Well I had insurance and knew the right people, but it was still crap in some places’.  As for Stephen Hawkins, he would still be here if the NHS weren’t, his care just would have been done through other means.

      Health Care reform that actually helps won’t happen in the US, because both the Republicans and Democrats simply argue for opposite sides of the same bloated big government coin.

      Finally, I’m not convinced the British people should be forced to pay for the authors health care.  By all means accept the funds and assistance of others, but let those funds be borne of voluntary giving, not force.

      It’s a shame that Govt expansion killed off all the mutual societies really.

      http://www.pimpinforfreedom.wordpress.com

    • jonathan says:

      10:00am | 02/09/09

      Hey Dave, cheap shots at Sarah Palin are FUNNY.  The woman is a joke who couldn’t run Alaska, and pundits are figuring her for a future presidential hopeful.  The quickest way to get taken seriously is to not be Sarah Palin…

      As for health care in the US, my parents lived there for a time.  They ended up having to move back because my mum has an ongoing heart condition that is completely treatable but was costing so much that they couldn’t afford to be there, particularly once she turned 65 and no health plan in the US would cover her (for real!).  So they moved back here and get amazing health care and cheap medication.
      I know a cyclist who was hit by a car in the US, with the driver being at fault.  Her hip was smashed in the accident.  She now owes about 40k to some hospital and will eventually have to declare bankruptcy, once the debt collectors catch up with her.  Give me our flawed system anyday.  When I was hit by a car I went to the emergency room at RPA, got attended to by 3 doctors, had x-rays and all that malarky.  Cost me nothing.

    • CJ says:

      10:07am | 02/09/09

      When I was in America, I worked in the ski fields for a couple of months. I had travel insurance, and luckily I didn’t get too sick, but I did get a throat infection at one stage and to see a doctor for a check up and basic script cost me over $250. The medication, which I’m sure was just boring old anti-biotics cost me over $50. It was almost not worth it!

      I got the money back after I got back to Australia, but I am very thankful we have a health system here that looks after everyone. My partner had a similar infection recently, and because he had a health concession card the doctor’s visit cost him nothing, and the medication cost all of $5.

      What would you prefer?

    • Anthony says:

      10:23am | 02/09/09

      “I’m finding it difficult to maintain the impartiality required of an ABC Current Affairs presenter”

      Wow.  They actually believe they are impartial.

    • Kym Durance says:

      10:26am | 02/09/09

      The debate was lost before it started - it has never been about the provision of health care - it has been primarily about the evils of socialism in any manifestation - doesnt really matter about the health it might offer those who fal out of an essnetially broken system - as for heath rationing - it goes on and has gone on every where for ever

    • pc says:

      10:30am | 02/09/09

      Peter, every tin pot dictator in the third world goes to the U.S because they can afford it. The purpose of health care in the United States is so AMERICANS can afford it. Neither they or their government can. The system is presently unsustainable and no matter how much you talk about death panels or reds under the bed it will not change the REALITY that most americans experience.

    • Jake the Muss says:

      10:31am | 02/09/09

      Well taking it out of the Aus and US systems (which as I said above are both flawed and have numerous problems that go beyond just ‘who pays’) to be perfectly honest I would prefer to have to pay the full amount rather than be the recipient of the mafia’s blood money (aka taxpayer funding). 

      Of course, even if I wanted to its nigh impossible to somehow extracate yourself from everything of that nature.  I’m considering private health insurance but I’m not convinced that is a real and honest solution.  The research continues.

    • Darin says:

      10:41am | 02/09/09

      The debate in the US, is not a sensible debate for the most part on either side. The President is still trying to claim that the Bill passed by the House and currently before the Senate is about reducing costs, when in fact the Congressional Budget Office has shown that the current package would increase costs considerably. On the otherhand, many opposed to reforms misrepresent public health care systems in Britain and Canada, and other countries, as centralised bureaucracies rationing care based on costs and not the medical needs of individual patients.

      The alarmists adovacting reform, like to quote the figure of 40-50 million Americans without health insurance. What they fail to point out, is that many of those people are eligible for safety schemes offered by the states and the federal governments. Also, they ignore the fact that many others also without insurance by choice. that is, they earn over 50,000 dollars and are not provided employer-sponsored insurance, but fail to purchase their own cover privately. The actual number of Americans that are without genuine cover, is a lot less than is generally reported.

      However, having said that, I find it difficult to comprehend that a country that spends almost three times as much per capita than Australia on healthcare, has lower levels of health and life expectancy by most measures. Equally, as is pointed out in this article, the fact that many Americans with long term illnesses are faced with the option of bankrupcy or death, is a chilling reality for many.

      A superficial look at the coverage would suggest that only the Democrats are for reforming the US health insurance system and that Republicans are for the status quo that favours insurance companies. However, if one takes a closer look, the debate is not as simple as that.

      Republicans, such as John McCain, and even Sarah Palin for that matter, reject the notion that the only way to solve the US health problem is to simply create another government program, adding several trillion dollars to a budget that is already nearly 2 trillion dollars in deficit. They rightly point out that the Government cannot afford its current health plans in Medicare and Medicaid, let alone adding to that financial burden.

      Instead, they promote other changes that are likely to increase competition between companies, restrict unfair practices by insurance companies in determining what are pre-existing conditions, and limiting gap fees, and most importantly, to change the current practice of employer negotiated and sponsored-health coverage. In many instances, employees are given little or no choice in selecting a plan that suits their needs or covers them against long term illnesses. In many cases, they are offered plans that provide 80 percent or more coverage for minor to medium level medical services, but at the expense serious and long term illness cover. So a visit to the doctor for the flu, or an x-ray for a broken arm is covered, or even hosptial care for pregnancy, but for serious conditions such as cancer, many Americans are left with plans that provide insufficient coverage. For most Americans, this is the critical area that needs to be looked at, and the country does not necessarily need to mimic Britain’s NHS or Australia’s Medicare system.

    • jonathan says:

      10:48am | 02/09/09

      As for the “Social Medicine” bogeyman that has reared it’s head in the States, I have this to say:  the US seems pretty happy about having socialised education (schools and universities) socialised legal system (policing at state and federal levels, plus courts etc), socialised services (such as the fire department) and socialised military (how many triilions are spent on killing people?) but then the next step, doing something that benefits society as a whole, is shouted down as being the the slippery slope to communism.  And of course the people shouting it down are those who can afford the best levels of health care (and pocket the dividends from their pharmaceutical shares), while those who suffer on the lower rungs of society will continue to suffer.

    • Charles says:

      11:08am | 02/09/09

      Loved your opening gambit and @Eric DSE has a good line of screen cleaners (like you, my full enjoyment of this article was delayed by a spot of cleaning up). 

      I offer that dental care is also part of Health care.  That is still one area which Aussie plans (private or public) fall woefully short on.

      You state: ‘After 90 days off work, the employer ceases to have any obligation to pay for your insurance. Under an Act called COBRA, you can extend the insurance (at your own considerable expense), but only for 18 months. After that, as I understand it, you are no longer covered by health insurance at all. Nor can you take out a new policy, because insurance companies won’t cover those with ‘prior conditions’.  In US you can go from Corporate plan, to COBRA then take out your own private insurance (yes it is expensive, but other cost of living items in the US are much cheaper, so there’s a bit of roundabouts & swings). Really this is not too dissimilar from Private health plans in AUS, in as much as you have to pay for private cover & it must be continuous to avoid ‘prior conditions’ situations.

      Re the USA, LBJ was the only President to have made any inroads to delivering Public Health (Medicare & Medicaid).  Before & since many have failed.

    • Terry says:

      11:28am | 02/09/09

      Americans look at 2 areas where the State *does* have control of healthcare - the VA (Veteran’s Administration) and the IHA (Indian Heath Administration), and rightfully get scared.  Mismanaged, overpriced, inefficient, poor quality of care.  They ask, Why can’t the State fix up the areas of healthcare they already *are* responsible for before asking the entire populace to just “trust them.”

      The majority of Americans would like to see the genuinely poor and disenfranchised cared for, but are happy with their own current healthcare arrangements and would be most unhappy with both the level of care and the degree of State interference that Australians seem willing to put up with.

      The majority of Australians seem not to understand the American psyche in the slightest.  That’s okay, but it also makes them pretty much unqualified to comment on American issues.  Enjoy your Nanny-State, and enjoy coasting along on the medical advances and innovations America provides you - and thank Your Deity Of Choice she doesn’t have socialised medicine, or else the majority of treatments you enjoy would not be available.

    • jonathan says:

      12:11pm | 02/09/09

      Hi Terry,
      quite happily enjoying the Nanny-State, thanks.
      I admit I don’t understand the American psyche, nor do I want to.  I can only comment where my family and friends have come into contact with the US system and I have to say their experiences have been pretty dismal and expensive.  But then none of these people are wealthy and had either basic or no insurance.

    • Mr Subramanian says:

      12:34pm | 02/09/09

      Ted Kennedy’s death should make health care reform easier in the US if they can turn into the right sort of martyr…

    • Celia says:

      01:15pm | 02/09/09

      @Terry - if ‘level of interference’ means that for a simple GP visit yesterday which came to a total of $96 I will be paying only $20 (and follow-up visits will be free of charge), plus superb care through two pregnancies and labours + followup postnatal visits in my home…then yes, I’m in support of your so-called “nanny state”.

    • Phil says:

      01:33pm | 02/09/09

      Great piece bringing a personal perspective to it.

      When I was in the US, I had the opposite.  Had a voluntary (and arguably unnecessary) knee reconstruction by the best orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia.  (He was the ortho for the Philadelphia Eagles football team.)

      Scans, MRIs, xrays, rehab - the works.  And because it was covered by health insurance, the doctors and specialists had no problem over-prescribing and over-diagnosing every little symptom. 

      An incredible expense - the cost of which was worn by my HMO and eventually my employer (via higher premiums).

      It’s hard to imagine a more wasteful system.

    • Andrew says:

      01:37pm | 02/09/09

      The UK system, the 60 year-old National Health Service,  like most continental equivalents is quite different to the Australian one in the sense that everything is practically free.  There are no out-of-pocket “gap payments” to see a specialist (or GP) in the UK and the cost of medicines range from FREE in Scotland and Wales to a minimal in England.

      Australia essentially operates a halfway house system somewhere in between the extremes of costly ‘socialist-style’ medicine found in Europe and the inhumane, each-man-for-himself “service” in the US. Mark Colvin is obviously extremely lucky that the specialist treating him is one of the relatively few in Australia who do not take private patients. Most specialist doctors charge an arm and a leg for their services and the gap between what medicare refunds and the actual fee can be eye watering. In the UK and most other Western European countries, you’d be treated for free and the cost of your medicines would be subsidised to a greater extent than what they are under the Australian PBS.

    • Helen Kuiper says:

      02:02pm | 02/09/09

      I did laugh at the ‘impartiality of the ABC’ comment. That’s why they have produced so many ALP candidates I assume. And you have completely failed to mention that Sarah Palin’s death panels was a reference the the ‘end of life consultation panels of bureaucrats’ that were in the Bill and within 24 hours of her saying that, were taken out of the Bill. Not bad for a supposed fool, if you listen to the left wing press. Is that showing impartiality when you distort the facts? And the other amusing thing is that suddenly no-one can use language in politics like she did but it was OK for the Democrats to call George Bush every name under the sun and to ridicule him mercilessly for years previously.

    • Dingo_aus says:

      02:01pm | 02/09/09

      “The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country. Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.”

      10 surprising fact about US Health Care:
      http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

    • AJ says:

      02:10pm | 02/09/09

      A slight tangent from the topic of health care, but the US response to the issue is, if I may be briefly overdramatic, indicative of the death of US democracy.

      Quite seriously, with the death of Ted Kennedy, and the rise of both the Religious Right and the snide, arrogant Left, the US system appears to have lost the ability to discuss issues rationally.  Deliberate misrepresentation and the embrace of ‘gotcha’ politics are the norm, which prevents informed decision making by the public.

      Maybe I’m alone in this, but does anyone else find the paralysis and decay of US politics, even on the most important of issues a little, well, terrifying?

    • jonathan says:

      02:19pm | 02/09/09

      Dingo_aus:  just followed that link.  Not surprisingly, the NCPA, while claiming to be completely unbiased, actually has “Consumer Driven Healthcare” as one of it’s main goals.  I don’t know much about the statistics they use, but I do know that statistics can be skewed to say anything you want.  I would suggest that every piece of information on that site will be anti-socialised medicine, regardless of any evidence that says the American system doesn’t work for the masses. 

      Still happy to not have to deal with the US health system.

    • AFR says:

      02:49pm | 02/09/09

      I have just returned from Thailand, where Fox “News” was the only channel of its type in my Hotel. If it wasn’t such a serious issue, I would have laughed so hard at the right wing nutjobs out there calling Obama everything but a communist for 24 hours a day, and saying how ridiculous it is that everyone sohuld be entitled to free health care, and attacked Canadian, English and Australian systems in the process. The US is a great nation alright, as long as you’re not poor.

    • bella says:

      03:37pm | 02/09/09

      AFR: Don’t you know that the poor just need to pull themselves up by thier bootstraps and suck on that trickle thats coming down from the top? (unless of course they no longer have fingers because they couldnt afford to see the doctor when they were trampled in a mob rush for said trickle).

    • Jake the Muss says:

      03:45pm | 02/09/09

      AFR:  Yes, I’m sure that’s exactly what they are saying.  If you refuse to give an accurate description of at least the lowest common denominators arguments, then why do you think you are credible.

      As for free healthcare for everyone, mate come on.  If you have solved that pesky ‘scarcity of resources’ problem then great but if you haven’t, don’t quote a placard as an argument and expect to be taken seriously.

    • pc says:

      03:58pm | 02/09/09

      AJ, and excellent point and if your interested there is an article by Paul Krugman in THE NEW YORK TIMES, I think mondays addressing the problems of governability in the states in very similar terms.

    • Alex says:

      04:04pm | 02/09/09

      The misrepresentation of facts is astonishing. I watched a whole town hall meeting the other day and the way groups of anti-Obama plants heckled the speaker was amazing. In fact the main news item on FOX was the physical confrontation rather than the substance of the disagreement. Then on the other side you had people holding up placards to counter them that was just provoking them. Rational debate is dead in the US. It has been hijacked by extreme right media groups like FOX news and biased extreme far left news programs like MSNBC that are more intent on promoting misinformation. It is amazing to think that so many Americans actually believe that health is a commodity that is not valued as a right in the same way they embrace their “right to bear arms”.  They are really loosing the plot over there.  The polarization of extreme views in the nation since 9/11 has now mutated into all areas of their life and public policy, clouding rational judement and debate.

    • JLT says:

      05:03pm | 02/09/09

      No, you wouldn’t be broke or dead. 30% of people are not insured in the US and they don’t drop dead like flies. They go to the nearest public hospital’s ER. I had experience of one; the doctors and nurses were all first class.

    • Eric says:

      06:08pm | 02/09/09

      It seems to me that the article was little more than a recitation of Democratic Party talking points. The Republicans have answers to every point he raised, but somehow these don’t feature.

    • Waz says:

      07:06pm | 02/09/09

      The US will have to front the same question Australia did. How to pay for it. We got a “tax levy”, while it doesn’t cover the full cost, it did up taxes to help.
      The US government sector has a problem well bey9ond what we here in Australia would tolerate. Almost all levels of their government are nearly bust financially. Permanent, chronic deficits, they’ve yet to seriously try to tackle.
      Having said that, my friends in the US basically get their health care insurance paid by their employer (large multinationals and the like). There’s a large proportion of the population there that don’t get it. Like Aus was before medicare, where a big chunk had no coverage…. while those that did, were fine.

    • katea says:

      08:00pm | 02/09/09

      I have watched the US health debate.on and off
      Now totally sick of it. Tired of their “we are the best attitude”.
      Tired of them referring to our sytem as socialist.
      When I hear - “We do not have enough doctors to help the 40 or so million uninsured”. I wonder, geez are those poor people expected to die in the street!!! ?
      The US economy is terrible.  Spending 16-18% og GDP on health care when many other industrial nations can provide good care at 8 - 10%.yet still they can not see the benifit.
      May their arrogance let them go broke.
      Wonder what care is like when you are subservient in debt and taken over by the Chinese!!!

    • SD says:

      10:21pm | 02/09/09

      Dingo_aus:

      Your statement, whilst interesting, is completely irrelevant.

    • waz says:

      11:19pm | 02/09/09

      I have lived under several public health systems and the Canadian one is the best. Private hospitals are banned. Illegal. Canada doesn’t have them. This means money doesn’t get siphoned off into the private system. There is still private health insurance for things like dental and optical. But the standard of care in the public system was equivalent to what you get in the private system in Australia. The Aussie system combines the worst of both systems.

    • Jake the Muss says:

      10:24am | 03/09/09

      Alex:  I guess they have a philosophical disagreement with the concept of positive rights but philosophically agree with the concept of negative rights.

      Personally, believing that there is no such thing as a right to steal, happen to agree.

    • Alex says:

      01:36pm | 07/02/12

      I’m not a dem or a repub, but it was the Dems that rrdeaoaild this health care plan through, with Odumbo right at the lead of the fanfare. When we take a step back and realize that 98% of the house and senate are nothing more than a den of thieves, we can see what we are dealing with. Since they all have the “goods” on each other, when one doesn’t go along with a plan, they throw them under the bus. Our mainstream media is more controlled than it ever has been, that includes MSNBC=GE Corporation

    • Marina says:

      01:38am | 28/03/12

      @Terry and Darin.  I agree with you. Unless you live here and experience it for you self you have no idea about what is going on. So many of the statements made above are ignorant and untrue.  As Terry said the American system does need to be better but NOT like what they rammed through when the majority of the population did not want it.  Is is an issue that needed to be addressed slowly and with thought.  I read all the time the horror stories from Australia about people without Private coverage and the mediocre treatment they recieve and the long waits. 
      So coming from an Australian living in America-paying for my own insurance Obama care is NOT going to be better for us—it will eventually be way worse. Please read the 200 plus page health care reform before you pass judgement on Americans wanting a say in Socialised medicine.

    • goedkope uggs says:

      10:35am | 23/10/12

      I am glad for commenting to make you understand what a incredible experience my wife’s girl undergone viewing the blog. She came to understand such a lot of issues, with the inclusion of how it is like to have an excellent giving spirit to have others without hassle fully grasp certain hard to do subject matter. You truly did more than our own expected results. Many thanks for imparting the useful, healthy, explanatory not to mention unique tips about the topic to Julie.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

@KevCorduroy @SallyHitchiner it's a great idea I doubt he'd go for it though far too laid back

ToryShepherd

. @mcguiremi is journo of the year! #samediaawards

ToryShepherd

.@mariamosco @msmarto Super Smarto. And Shirley Stott Despoja into the Hall of Fame #samediaawards

ToryShepherd

Best print journo to @mcguiremi woot! #samediaawards

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter