The United Kingdom and the National Health Service

One of the main goals that I wish to accomplish from this blog is to explore other health care systems from different countries. Since the UK system, National Health Service, has been used as an example of a failing single-payer system by the opposition in the health care debate, I am intrigued to discover the reasons behind these allegations. Is it a failing system displaying “what goes wrong when government interferes” or is it a fable?

In the US health care debate lately, the GOP is leading a “Be frightened of England” campaign in order to stir some fear in the already heated debate. Some statements included

“Go on the government’s dime for medicine, and you’ll die waiting for that easy surgery treatment.”

Their messages can be seen everywhere both on the web and on the congressional floor. Yet is there truth to their argument. From researching several sources on the UK, I have compiled a list of pros and cons of the single payer system.

Let’s first present some of the pros. In the UK, all residences are insured by the state and medical attention is largely free at the point of use. In order for all citizens to be covered, there is a general tax paid (about 3% yeah I know that’s a lot!) by the UK residence. With this type of health care system, UK residence are able to receive good health care and pay less for it (in the end that 3% does come back to you). One major pro about the system is that it is able to provide great medical assistance with worthy doctors and nurses at a low flat rate for the entire UK population (this also includes a flat rate for prescriptions). Some last major pros about the system are insurance prices which stay the same year after year and all residence are guaranteed medical attention.

Although this system seems perfect…well to be honest it’s not perfect. Some of the problems with the National Health Service (NHS) include poor waiting times for general surgeries, hospitals being overcrowded and with outdated medical equipment, and many more fueled by scandals and politics. Many of the complaints about the effectiveness of the system are caused by the long waiting list for general surgery that ranges from waiting to 30 days to 18 weeks (if lucky enough). The NHS gives high priority to important surgeries but for minor surgeries people are forced to wait longer. Other problems have to deal with inadequately supplied hospitals affecting their abilities to properly assist the patients. Several more arguments are presented mainly drawn from individual incidents that have led to residence questioning the effectiveness of the system.

Although it seems as the people from across the pond may not be too happy with the NHS, on the contrary polls have shown they are satisfied and feel that they are getting “good health care”. Therefore is it a system to “be frightened” as the GOP state? Seeing from the poll results it seems that the people of the United Kingdom don’t see their health care as a system to cause fright. Therefore the GOP is exaggerating quite a bit about the single payer system to possibly sway the debate in their favor. But partisanship aside, what can we learn and benefit from the NHS?? That will require more research and will be discussed in next week’s posting. See you next time =)