Comrade Wallis,

Wow, how fortunate that you "Jim Wallis" the prophet of the progressive/socialist movement . . . would have had such a good experience with socialized medicine in a foreign country.

Jim, the reason you met such nice people in that little socialized isle, is that they were people with jobs.

How much is petrol and taxes in general in Britain?

Now, Jim, here in America every ER department sees anyone no matter the injury or condition or, your ability to pay for it.

The average wait is hours and NO ONE has to fill out any insurance forms.

Now if I walk into an English hospital and say that I am a famous Leftist religious figure, I wonder how long my wait would be.

But, I'm happy for you that it was such a minor injury needing no complicated follow-up, treatment or surgery. Darwin knows how long you would have had to stay in Britanistan.

I wonder how nice it will be when the government gets to handle "everything" some day? It appears from the way libs, progs, and Democrats want our world, "they" WILL decide everything for us.

I can't wait for socialized religion.

Let me guess a mark on the hand or forehead for the privilege?

And I thought you Progressives were taking us back to ancient Rome or Sodom with the way you like your hedonism.

Silly me, you're just going back as far as 1984.

Posted by: Donny | August 11, 2007 7:58 AM

Get well soon.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 11, 2007 10:24 AM

Oh, here we go again. The "I went to a country with universal healthcare and it was wonderful" schtick. Yes, most of the time things are fine in such systems--but it's the same way in the U.S. Most of the time it's fine. It's when you've lived there for a while that you begin to discover the kinks in the system. I waited 6 hours in a Canadian waiting room to get my broken finger set and bandaged. Sheesh, Rev. Wallis, you sound like Michael Moore in Cuba.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | August 11, 2007 11:30 AM

I'm glad Wallis' experience was so positive. Others have not had the same treatment. My wife lived in England some two decades ago, and she found the NHS less than fully helpful in treating a chronic medical condition. Our family is Canadian, and we have recently had more than our share of headaches with the health care system here. There is a serious shortage of doctors here in southern Ontario, and emergency rooms are indeed crowded.

Last winter I had an appendicitis attack. We waited in an ER for hours, during which time my appendix burst. I was in considerable pain, but there were no beds available at that time. I was unable to have this "emergency" surgery until the following evening. I would not favour moving to the US model (there are enough horror stories from south of the border), but I think our system badly needs reform, probably by imposing a means-tested user fee for visits to the doctor.

I would be interested to know whether most British citizens have had the same experience as Mr. Wallis' with the NHS.

Posted by: Theo | August 11, 2007 3:23 PM

Elizabeth,
Didn't your husband have insurance from his school? Still, it's true that such families as yours do sometimes slide through the cracks in the U.S. system--but that can be solved by means other than through socialized medicine.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | August 11, 2007 4:54 PM

Just as a side note, I had an appendicitis attack in Canada as well. I went to the hospital at 9 AM. Saw a doctor within 30 minutes. He told me what was wrong and that I needed surgery. I was prepped by 12 noon and in surgery by 12:30. I was in the hospital for a day or so recovering and then sent home. Didn't pay a cent.

I'm not saying the system up here is perfect, but it's not as bad as everyone seems to think. No doubt reform is needed, but let's not act like the system is teetering on the brink of collapse.

As a missionary in South America where there is no health care system and you pay as you go (if you're needing surgery you'd better have a family memeber who can run and buy bandages and medicine) I value a system (no matter how imperfect) where quality care is available (even if it's slow sometimes) to EVERYONE.

Just my two cents...

Posted by: Ken | August 11, 2007 7:09 PM

I have a young cousin who attended college in London for a semester. One night he developed really bad stomach pains, so his two room-mates took him to the ER, where he had three doctors consulting over him. I can't remember what the diagnosis was, but it wasn't anything serious. When he asked what the cost would be he was told not to worry about it. His parents, their insurance company through Northewest Airlines, or my cousin received a bill for this trip to the ER. He was told that if he needed hospitalization or follow up care there would be a charge. Incidentally for the people making comments about religion----this young man and his family are conservative evangelicals.

As far as anybody in the US being able to go the emergency room for treatment, that isn't always the case. There are hospitals in the country that load the uninsured up in one of their ambulances and drop them off in front of homeless shelters. We hear about that on the news every now and then.

When it comes to wait time for doctor appointments, about a year ago I called for an appointment with a dermatologist the soonest I could get in was two months. Also about three years ago I suffered a torn rotator cuff, which wasn't causing me any real pain, nothing but a dull ache. The orthopedic surgeon that diagnosed it couldn't do the surgery for six weeks, which gave me a lot of time to do some checking and I decided to cancel the surgery. The only way that I could afford to consult an orthopedic doctor at that time was because it was a workman's comp claim. For that reason I also had a nurse that was appointed to go with me to doctor's appointments, and while the doctor was explaining the surgery to me, she looked at him and asked him how many patients she had brought him that week. It kind of made me wonder if she was getting a commission on the patients that she brought him. For the last two years I have been on medicare and at least now I can go to a doctor when I need to.

Anything that involves insurance companies is going to cost people money. I am so low income that I was receiving my prescription medications free from the pharmeceutical companies and when medicare part D went into effect, these companies notified me that even IF I didn't apply for part D, I owuld be dropped from their plans. Now I have to pay for my meds, bcause I am on part D. The government would have been doing something worthwhile with part D if they had ran it completely like medicare instead of having insurance companies doing it.

When it comes to knee and hip surgery if a person is obese, it will probably depend on the degree of obesity. Obeseity can cause hip and knee problems, so it would be understandable that a doctor might recommend some weight loss. Also if a person is morbidly obese it is unsafe for them to go under a general anesthesia. I have a friend who had hip surgery about a month ago and she said as much pain as she was in, if she had to be on a waiting list she could have endured the pain because she knew it wasn't anything that would kill her. A few years ago this same friend was referred to a major, well known clinic/hospital in the US and she said she would have been up the "crick" if she hadn't been able to afford supplemental insurance besides her medicare, because at that time this facility didn't accpet medicare.

From different articles that I have read about the Canadian, British and Europeon health care, the people do pay more taxes, but it still comes out as less than what people in the US pay for taxes and insurance premiums.

Posted by: foxgrandma | August 11, 2007 11:15 PM

I have a friend who just had her knee replaced. The insurance company said she could have only three days of post-op care in the hospital. When they told the hospital to release her she was still having discharge from the knee...enough that her dressing needed changed twice a day.

The next morning she was back in the ER with infection. Under this scenario the insurance company would allow 23 hours of care...no more.

I'll be honest, I'd rather have the government controlling healthcare instead of the insurance companies. I can vote against my congress-critter every 2 years. What can I do about Blue Cross/Blue Shield?

Posted by: iowafellow | August 12, 2007 12:57 AM

So please, all you folks talking about how socialized medicine will raise our taxes, I can assure you that if my taxes increased 4 fold it would STILL be cheaper than the insurance premiums I pay now.Posted by: Dan |

Dan, how dare you speak in real and concrete terms! We all know that if the health insurance dictatorship over healthcare were to broken, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and Vladimir Lenin would gain a foothold over the hearts and minds of America! We are better than that. Let our teeth rot and our organs malfunction but we have "liberty" dammit!

Posted by: Jerseykid | August 12, 2007 7:00 AM

Jim,

I'm glad to hear that your foot is healing. Otherwise, I'm not particularly impressed with your tale. You had an injury that was relatively easy to diagnose, using technology that has been available since the turn of the century, and from what I can gather fairly inexpensive to treat as well. So you didn't exactly submit NHS to the acid test. If your injury had required an MRI to diagnose, and surgery to repair, and the whole thing gone quickly, then you might have gotten my attention.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | August 12, 2007 12:58 PM

Hi,

I live in the UK, and have used the NHS, particually emergency a little more than my fair share. Whilst the NHS has it's issues (with the share of associated horror stories), the care has generallty seemed first rate to me.

When my brother-in-law broke his back a few years ago had had access to all he needed, and was treated as rapidly as his injury allowed, including MRI and Cat scans (are they different?)

It's hard to know what the US system is like, as mostly what I've heard seem to come from opposed far sides of the debate. Having lived with a national healthcare system my whole life though, I simply can't imagine paying the amount many americans seem to pay for their healthcare. Is that really the average?

I recognise that of course the NHS isn's free, and is paid for through the tax system, but I love that everyone is entitled to equal treatment, regardless of ability to pay.

For every story I read about poor hospital care, I hear so many more person to person about good experiences of the NHS.

In terms of salaries - this page may help.

Steve

Posted by: Steve | August 12, 2007 3:11 PM

“Now, Jim, here in America every ER department sees anyone no matter the injury or condition or, your ability to pay for it.” Donny

You obviously haven’t been to New Orleans lately.

Seek peace and pursue it (but good luck finding medical services in New Orleans if you’re not insured!)

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 12, 2007 5:08 PM

Hi Kev,

And america has sarcasm, what a shocker!

Posted by: Steve | August 12, 2007 6:06 PM

Great post. I just returned from France where I am pleased that my in-law have access to that healthcare system rather than the shameful one we have here in the United States.

Posted by: Jerseykid | August 12, 2007 7:08 PM

"Great post. I just returned from France where I am pleased that my in-law have access to that healthcare system rather than the shameful one we have here in the United States."

Just mind the heatwaves, which illuminated a whole slew of problems with their system.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 12, 2007 7:56 PM

Just mind the heatwaves, which illuminated a whole slew of problems with their system. Posted by: kevin s.

Thank you for your pointless sarcasm.

Posted by: Jerseykid | August 13, 2007 4:07 AM

So "socialized medicine" is actually a religious endeavor?

"It is worth noting that the Rev. Wallis was commenting on his experience. He did not stand up and offer a sermon on how socialized medicine, exactly how other countries run it, is the thing Jesus would do. He did say that placing a priority on the health and wellness of all people, showing this kind of love to those who need it, is a Biblical priority."

So then, it cannot be implemented because of the seperation of church and state.

Like I've always said pure hypocrisy is leftist politics.

Because Prophet Wallis WAS INDEED offering up another one of his Leftist/Democrat-supporting Biblical sermons.

It's interesting how Democrats can inject religion without a shred of lib-hysteriacs attacking it.

Give me liberty or give me taxation of only Democrats.

Posted by: Donny | August 13, 2007 7:28 AM

Can anybody here who thinks our system is so perfect tell me how much two weeks in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit costs? That'd be around $40,000 give or take a couple of G's. Thankfully, my wonderful insurance company paid almost all of it except $8,000 bucks. Oh, and I forgot, we're getting bills for all the labs and doctors who stopped by to look at or treat our son as well so $8,000 is now up to about $12,000. That is, after my insurance company garciously agreed to take care of their share.

I have insurance and I am employed. My wife is employed as well, though she doesn't have insurance. In the past 5-6 years we have spent enough out of pocket to by a REALLY REALLY nice car--or even enough money to send our son to a good college for four years. Now either you think that's fair or you don't. Either you think healthcare is a right or you don't.

Consider this also. Count how many commercials you see on TV for Kaiser and Pfizer and then ask yourself "Why are my premiums so high?" Or even, "Why is my employer changing my benefits package AGAIN?" The truth is that Insurance companies and drug companies are in it to make money. They are ONLY ONLY ONLY concerned with their economic self-interest--and hey, that's the american way! Insurance companies will deny you coverage, they will drop you from their plans they will do everything to leverage their ability to pay out and WHY? So they can show a higher profit in the next financial quarter and please their shareholders.

Socialized medicine (which is a term that is more about fear than reality) is a big ol boogy man concocted by those invested in the status quo to make you think that we'll revert to the Dark Ages (or morph to Stalin's Russia) if we move towards some kind of subsidized health care. The fact is though that those systems work--and by some accounts better than ours. Countries with subsidized or national healthcare have a higher rate of favorable outcomes and lower infant mortality rates than us. In fact, acccording to some reports, the US is second only to Latvia in most number of newborn deaths in the developed world.

We need a reform of our current system that offers SOME kind of coverage to EVERYONE. I happen to believe that a system like they have in Germany and Australia, one that combines elements of both private and public plans, might work wonderfully in this country. That is if people are willing to actually at long last yank their heads up out of the sand and have a substantive debate (rather than a shouting match) over this issue...

Posted by: James | August 13, 2007 10:15 AM

Dear Jim:

I had the same trepidations when I had to use the Japanese medical system in Japan about 15 years ago, when I was a student. I was told to get all of my dental needs taken care of before I left because Japanese Dentist would be archaic and hard to find. ???

When I had problems with my wisdom teeth I was ushered in to the local Japanese medical system by well meaning freinds to see an oral surgian who was educated in the US at a top ranking medical school. ???

I finally got the care in Japan as a foriegner, a gaigin ( lit. an ALIEN!!! ), that I should have gotten back home before I left, but could not afford as a citizen of my own country (US).

I will always recognize, that finally receiveing care for a problem that was not done correctly by my dentist at home was a gift from the citizens of Japan. If only my wisdom teeth had been done correctly in the first place, back in the US, I would not have needed to use the Japanese system.

I was filled with anxiety when I was faced with finding a new dentist upon my return to living in the US. Would I be able to afford someone who could appreciate the careful repair work that was done on my mouth, so I could continue to play the violin for my students?

I am so fortunate to be in CA where I can find such expertize but the out of pocket cost is keeping me living hand to mouth year after year even with dental insurance added to my health care.
I am confused about spending so much money on the health insurance (which ignors me) when I could be spending it on a more healthy diet.

I generally avoid Doctor's offices except for the things you have to get done. As a teacher I'm extremely lucky that I rarely ever catch anything or feel ill for years at a time.

Good dental health is a major preventitive for a lion's share of other health problems. America should set their sights on having the best and most affordable, proactive dental care.
It would save us trillions for all of our other medical costs.

It is penny wize and a ton of foolishness that our children do not get the dental care that they need even if they are immigrants or aliens.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | August 13, 2007 11:24 AM

Oh !!
One other thing.

Did I mention that the US trained oral surgian that treated me was in a hospital in rural Matsumoto, Japan? A location and size in the mountains of Japan equivalent to say . . . Pikes Peak.

Not Urban, Tokyo or Osaka.

He actually had to commute to Tokyo on the week ends if he wanted to see the Symphony. So what does Japan do to get their most gifted medical talent to practice up stream in their back waters.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | August 13, 2007 11:55 AM

James said

Now either you think that's fair or you don't. Either you think healthcare is a right or you don't.

First James , I am so sorry for your circumstances . That sounds just horrible .

I don't believe Health Care is a right that the government owes to us . I believe its something we as a people can work towards , but I do not see it as a right .
Do you belong to a church family may I ask ?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | August 13, 2007 4:21 PM

I think that many of you critics (particularly the ones who most vehemently lashed out at this article) are missing the point. Wallis never says in this article that there are no problems with socialized medicine. He never said that his experience in England was vastly better than the majority of his experiences in the United States. All he did was describe his experience and how it contradicted the terrifying pictures drawn by the American news media and conservative pundits.

Posted by: Sean | August 13, 2007 5:27 PM

In all of this debate, why is there so little dialogue about the true issues, and how to address them?

1. Our health care system works well if you're well-off, poorly if you're lower middle class, and not at all if you're below the poverty line.

2. Health insurance providers make HUGE campaign contributions to keep Congress (both sides of the aisle) from doing anything meaningful to reform and expand our system to assist the uninsured.

3. Tort reform is a large part of the equation. Turn off the litigation tap and you'll see costs drop significantly.

4. The richest nation in the world turns it's back on the poor, the elderly and the unemployed as far as health care...while handing out tax breaks for the top 1% of the population. Jesus didn't command us to cater to the wealthy, or provide assistance to only some of our brethern. He told us to extend the hand of compassion to all our brotehrs and sisters. Stand up for what is right, America!

Pray for Peace!

Posted by: Doug7504 | August 13, 2007 6:42 PM

Cads,
Some Australian answers. Don't know all but here are some.

2. University in Australia is subsidised for most so debts levels at end of course are significantly lower than in US. (Subsidised on basis of ability not income).

3. Australia has mixed system, with private and public cover. Doctors sued in public hospitals are insured by govt. Doctors working privately pay their own insurance (but also tend to earn more).

5. Australia's tax rate is on sliding scale. Top tax rate is around 45% but only on income over about $80000 pa. If earning over $50K and single or $100K for family then there's an additional 1% levy if you don't have private health cover.

6. Medicare keeps tabs on peoples use of system and those high users are investigated and may be charged if found to be fraudulent or abusing it. Those with chronic medical issues are actually put on specialised management plans.

7. We have a mixed system and not all procedures are covered publically. Lapbanding for instance. You can get this covered by private insurance or just pay it in full (about $7500 starting rate - covers total procedure and private hospital stay).

Hope it helps.

Posted by: Trent | August 13, 2007 7:32 PM

Do you think we could get a trade-off where conservatives concede that some sort of subsidization is necessary for most of America to have adequate coverage, and liberals concede that if pharmaceutical and insurance companies can't make obscene amounts of money off the medical industry, neither can lawyers and some injured parties?

I don't know if God will forgive us for all the people lost or hurting while we argue ideology.

Posted by: gina b. | August 13, 2007 8:29 PM

Mick,

Thanks for the kind words. Thankfully, all is well and we have a very healthy 20 month old--and though we are staring at some pretty scary bills, we are so very blessed in our family. And YES, we do have a very loving and supportive church family who, frankly, helped us through a tough time. Sadly, we are once again fighting the insurance company over an ectopic pregancy which had to be surgically corrected this past January. As if losing a pregnancy weren't bad enough...

But as to your comment:

"I don't believe Health Care is a right that the government owes to us . I believe its something we as a people can work towards , but I do not see it as a right."

I believe you and I will have to respectfully disagree--and that's okay. I hope, though, that we can agree that healthcare shouldn't be something you have to mortgage your house for--or your child's college fund. One fact that escapes many in this debate is this: medical debt is one of the two main reasons people declare bankrupcy in this country. That to me is not okay. Thankfully, this debate notwithstanding, there is a momentum building for change of some kind. I don't know what that will look like--perhaps a hybrid public/private plan as they have in Australia or Germany. But change is coming. The question is how much and how soon.

Posted by: James Palmer | August 13, 2007 9:43 PM

Socialized Medicine is alive and well in the USA--although the Military Health System would be loathe to acknowledge that it has embraced such a model of healthcare.

If you look at how that works for the US military (and soldiers' family members, who are also covered) there are good and bad features. Medical students who train at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda get FREE medical school tuition (including scrubs, books, and tutoring) as well as a second lieutenant's salary, which is around $50,000 a year including housing supplements. HPSP students are in the reserves, but get free tuition at their choice of civilian medical school and a monthly stipend. Once graduated, the docs have to work in the military to pay back their service obligation. Looking at the link to the UK's NHS system salaries--they are roughly equivalent to what US military MD's are paid. Many military docs stay because they get to focus on patient care, not office management, insurance claim paperwork, and lawsuits.

There's been a lot of press recently about the actual healthcare received in the military, from laudatory stories about injured soldiers being evacuated from Iraq & Afghanistan to the Wahington Post story about how soldiers get lost in the outpatient care maze during their rehabilitation. It is such a large system that there are outlying cases at both extremes. Some people get extraordinary care at the right time and military healthcare professionals go many extra miles to help: I know a fighter pilot who was medically retired because of an aortic aneurism and got a new Gore-Tex aorta (free), but the anticoagulant dosage was off and he had a stroke while running a few years later. His military doctor met him at the civilian ER where he was taken and rode with him in the ambulance to Johns Hopkins Hospital. You don't get much more personalized service than that.

There are also negative stories, about people getting lost in the system and having to wait forever to get an appointment in places that have provider shortages. And of course, healthcare professionals make mistakes, have bad days and get rude with patients, and a certain percentage are impaired by the usual addictions to alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc. that clouds judgment and impairs performance--so there are lawsuits in this system as well when people are injured by malpractice.

My point is that the USA DOES have a socialized medical system imbedded in its larger health-care system. The military health system functions with the both the strengths (free or very low-cost care, high quality of care from JCAHO accredited hospitals and board certified docs, universal access for eligible beneficiaries) and weaknesses (less choice of providers, shortages of providers in some places and longer waits for routine outpatient care). While my family has been very well cared for in this system, I know others that have had frustrating or downright bad experiences--just like all the examples and counter-points cited above.

Jim Wallis' experience was a pleasant one, which may account for 85% (just a guess here) of patient encounters with the NHS in the UK. If Brits accept this as a right and not a privilege, then such an experience would be a normal event and not worth mention--other than the gratitude I've seen reflected in some of the posts here from UK & Canadian residents and visitors who have had encounters in their systems. Those who have bad experiences will complain, as they should. Healthcare is like airline flights--there is little margin for error and serious consequences when there is error.

While Jim may frame this from a Christian perspective, socialized medicine could also be grounded in secular humanism or enlighted social altruism--any moral or social philosophy that views health care as a right of all citizens, not just those with money or really good insurance.

In the Army, a core value is taking care of all your soldiers--you never leave a fellow soldier behind, whether lost, wounded or killed. How is that socialism??

Posted by: Mark C | August 14, 2007 12:09 AM

James said

Thankfully, this debate notwithstanding, there is a momentum building for change of some kind. I don't know what that will look like--perhaps a hybrid public/private plan as they have in Australia or Germany

Glad to hear your child is doing Ok . Sounds like the insurance company is pathetic?

You expect them to be there when such things happen , your insured and this happen ? That is just wrong . I assumed you talked to a lawyer about options ? Would not hurt if you haven't .

I am very conservative , and with my lens I never saw government as a product of doing things for us , more as a institution there to protect our freedoms . But people such as your self make a difference when you speak out .

If I heard it from Hillary I am ashamed to admit I would have discounted it . I hope your right about the hybrid system , we should copy what works form other countries , and allow the part of that which works in our system to continue to work also .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | August 14, 2007 5:05 AM

Instead of hearing lies and innuendo about the French system, the following is a good link that lays out what it is all about:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/

Posted by: Jerseykid | August 14, 2007 5:45 AM

As a dual citizen (U.S. and Canada) I have heard the most outrageous strories from Americans about how Canadian health care works. None of those stories had any basis in reality. Actually, they sounded more like the way American HMO's work.

When asked if I thought socialized medicine would work in the U.S. I said "no". You americans would make it so complicated requiring so much paperwork that few would make it through the system.

As one of my doctors who moved to Canada so he could actually treat his patients - all of his patients - says, the Americans are so afraid of the word socialist (actually most of them call it communism) that they would die before they would vote for a new medical system. Well, good luck you guys and keep the country safe from good health.

Posted by: Lynn Brubaker | August 14, 2007 7:31 AM

Well, speaking as a Canadian, the usual ER time is about 4-6 hours in Ontario, and yes, you're right, be sure to pack a water and a good novel, that is if you,re not in so much pain that you can't read.
Now, on the other hand, we were visiting Washington DC and my 3 year old daughter was screaming with an inner ear infection. We went to a U.S. ER and arrived at approximately 10:00pm and were finally released at 3:45am. Gosh, almost the same time. They sure asked a lot of questions about insurance when we were there, and being insured by a well known carrier, the hospital even messed that up, trying for months to collect $75.00.
What it boils down to, as in auto insurance, there is big money in insurance. If not, the insurance companies would be happy to hand over their losing business to the government. There is the good and bad of both systems but I would take the socialized system any day over the private. Both of my children were born in Ontario and I would not expect better birthing care anywhere else in the world.

Posted by: David Palmer | August 14, 2007 8:07 AM

"Ok, Rick, here's from the UK Daily Mail"
Nooooooo, anything but the daily mail! :-)

On a lighter note, I think Jim is right to point out the the national health service here (UK) isn't all bad (although its not all good either) - I'd certainly rather have it then a privatized healthcare system! The higher taxes we have to pay for it are probably a good thing - they stop the rich getting richer and help re-distribute things a bit, although of course, the very rich often find ways of avoiding tax (which is quite unfair if you ask me).

Tim

Posted by: Tim Saunders | August 14, 2007 11:41 AM

"health insurance, like all insurance has undergone a rather radical shift in recent years from being the distributor of costs and risks over a larger pool, with its rightful claim to compensation for this service, to an industry with a zero-sum mentality where every dollar of claims paid is a dollar less of profit for the insurance company. "

That's just two different ways of stating the same thing. Insurance is, be law, a zero-sum game. Insurers indemnify, no more and no less. Insurance margins are not spiraling upward, to my knowledge. If I am wrong about this, let me know.

The insurance industry has remained relatively stable. Our healthcare costs, on the other hand, have skyrocketed for a variety of reasons. But simply removing insurers from the process is not going to create the tremendous savings you imply here.

"do we as a society think access to life-saving and life-sustaining medical care should depend on economic status?"

I think it will in any system wherein citizens are encourage to take on private insurance. The solution to this is to ban private insurance, which would fly in this country about as well as banning private schools.

We cannot afford to provide every manner of life-saving care to everyone. That is untenable. So where do we cut corners.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 14, 2007 12:07 PM

"We cannot afford to provide every manner of life-saving care to everyone. That is untenable. So where do we cut corners.[?]"

We start with assholes such as yourself.

Posted by: Chuck Geshekter | August 14, 2007 2:44 PM

I lived under Socialized Medicine in the UK when it first started. My dad was Welsh mother and I (a teenager)were "Yanks,", and after the war we joined him in Wales. Soon after Socialized Medicine started, I had major tooth problems, spent a week in hospital, two teeth removed and a removable plate inserted. 58 years later it still is with me!

This past Spring, I took my youngest son (42 y.o.) to visit relatives (I have a 95 y.o. aunt, two first cousins and more second cousins than I can count. On our second day in Wales, son Mike tells me he has appendicitis. I informed my cousin's husband, he took us to a hospital in Swansea. They asked my son three questions: Your name, where you are staying, and a phone number (I had a UK cell phone). Then, to a room, where a nurse (5 minutes) took vital signs and drew blood. A doctor (10 minutes) then palpated Mike and said, "Yes, you have appendicitis." He would get him into surgery early afternoon (this was at 9 AM). 1/2 hour later, the doctor (Mr. Harikrishna, I kid you not) said they were taking him immediately to surgery because of high white blood count. Off he went. 2 hours later he emerged from surgery (the appendix had adhered to the appendix and surgery was more difficult). Mike was in a ward with 4 other men. No bells and whistles, but when Mike was in pain, he pushed the "call" button and within minutes a nurse gave him a pain med. Two days later he was released from hospital, but not before he was asked if he had medical insurance. He produced the card which they copied. Mike has recovered fully. A month later, he received a letter indicating there was a carcinoid attached to the appendix, but, since it was removed it posed no problem for him.
This past Monday, Mike's HMO asked him to get the costs for his operation from the hospital. We emailed his doctor with the HMO's request and fax number.
I visit Wales and England regularly (every other year or so) to see relatives. All are very positive about SM, particularly since Blair and the Labour Party made some very much needed changes. My 95 y.o. aunt has been cared for very well in her hospital visits, as has a cousin who now has Altzheimers! One cousin, and his wife are doctors, and while they realize that the system is imperfect--some elective surgery is delayed by a month or two--Socialized Medicine has cared well for children, older adults, and emergency needs quickly and efficiently. All ill persons, rich or poor, get the same treatment from SM. While some doctors have private practice for one day a week and can care for those who can afford that level of care, they all are part of "Socialized Medicine."
We need to know more about the positives of this practice of medicine and how it can meet the needs of people not covered by HMOs and who can not afford to see doctors regularly.
When will we realize that we need to see that there are success stories of other nations that know that it is morally right to care for ALL their citizens. And even U.S. citizens!

Posted by: John Pipe | August 14, 2007 4:05 PM

""We cannot afford to provide every manner of life-saving care to everyone. That is untenable. So where do we cut corners.[?]"

We start with assholes such as yourself."

Stay classy Chuck.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 14, 2007 4:47 PM

Hi James ,

Thanks for sharing this James .

When I switched jobs about 14 years ago I paid for this policy that basically covered anything that was very expensive .and did not cover normal medical care . It was a 100 bucks a month , we had fived kids living at home with us then . We paid any doctor visits and our Family doctor was cool about handing out medicine that they get for free from drug companies .

I guess we were were just lucky , who knows the same thing could have happened to us .
I would not have taken the job I have now if it did not have a medical plan . Tieing medical plans to our employers was a drastic mistake I think . It stops many I would think from doing what they feel they are good at , and promotes them to choose employment based on a medical plan do what is right for their familes instead .

Try that on your conservative friends , because it is what bothers me about the system we have , the right to healthcare does not sway me , I want everyone to have it , but the lack of freedom in regards to choosing our professions because of medical care expense sways me to move closer to your view . .

America should be about opportunity ,

Children in poverty also sways me, I would even give to that cause , and have .

I also see the lobysits writing laws . Your right , the voices that are heard are so often voices that are paid by someone . Even Religious Organizations pay people to voice their moral convictions . That is what this organization does . We the people got lost is we the paid the lobysist . I wish we had term limits , I think it would have solved many problems . For one thing , if I was an elected republican , and say you convinced me to go along with socialized medicine . If I am worried about getting re elected I might not vote your way knowing my base would roast me alive for supporting it . I think our system is broke sometimes. Legislators vote for their party , the lobysists on their side , and not always for the people .

How conservatives in our very liberal state , >>>>> see this James for the most part is that the state is forcing insurance companies to flee because of legislation that compells them to cover certain things that they say makes them unable to be competive .In our state insurance companies have fled , our state has mandated many things making insurance companies to cover , and they just left the state . I am a state employee , and have it pretty good , but our choices have gone down also , the private sector has it worse . My point is that the way our state has handled it has made it worse , less choices , but we also have basically every child covered in this state that is below a certain income level . So coverage for all basically , but expensive . if the economy goes south , kids will be lossing medical care or something will be cut . We use sales tax and property taxes , regressive taxes and liberal leadership , go figure .

But your point is that without state control , the companies leave you out in the cold for a severe illness . Both problems need to be addressed , keep choices and make sure people are covered for serious problems .

Just a side not ,
Have you considered Bankruptcy James ? It seems so unfair to have your whole life's work be tied this medical problem .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | August 14, 2007 5:41 PM

I think that who is paying for it doesn't establish or predict the quality of care. Some people have good experiences, some don't, some have downright destructive ones. What is needed in the USA is to make health care available to everyone - yes: the way Jim Wallis experienced it in Britain, although on a different day he might have finished the novel before being seen or even gotten an incorrect diagnosis.

Posted by: Lawrence Rosenfeld | August 14, 2007 5:52 PM

jim, are you naive or what? the story you told is probably embellished but maybe not. sorry about your foot but .... me thinks it was a way to let us know how important you are and what your itinerary is. the issue of health care was not advanced with your story.
oh, and isn't neuro nurse great? such a wonderful person.
it's a shame that this country is soooooooooo bad that it is driving people out.
do you people ever count your blessings? do you ever offer real solutions to your perceived problems. do you vote? neuro - let me know if you need help buying your ticket to africa.

Posted by: jerry | August 14, 2007 6:26 PM

I never thought I'd live to see the day when I agreed 100% with Neuro Nurse, but that day has arrived! Nice post!!

Posted by: Cads | August 14, 2007 6:49 PM

nuero. my point is - is there anything that you like about this country? is there enough work to do here or must one go to africa to find "good works"? how can one fret about the poor illegals and then spend big bucks to go to africa to help people? i sorta see you like i see jim wallis, spinning around seeing if anyone is noticing. looking for the perfect place to help. try s. 12th st. in tucson. bring your love, your glock and 20 dollar bills.

Posted by: jerry | August 14, 2007 8:20 PM

jerry,

Are you faulting me for wanting to serve in Africa? That's really between the Lord and me.

Hey, there are times I'd love to have a "normal” life. (not very often, but sometimes)

Why shouldn't we, who live in the wealthiest country on the planet, want to serve people who have a disease burden that is unimaginable to most of us? Should we just keep it all for ourselves?

Jerry, God gave me a vision and a passion for working in Africa. I’m really not sorry if that offends you – I’m rather disappointed that you would find that so upsetting.

I love this country, and I feel incomplete if I don’t spend part of my time volunteering for people in need in this country when I am here.

Where is there anything in what I’ve written that suggests I have a complaint against my country? Having spent a considerable amount of time in developing countries (three years, all totaled) I am sometimes appalled by the gross consumption and waste I see perpetrated by some of my fellow countrymen.

I know, I know, you’re entitled to enjoy your wealth. You’ve earned it, blah, blah, blah. The truth is, you didn’t earn it. It was handed to you when you were born (white) in this country. All you had to do was reach out and take it. Africans, for the most part, do not have the opportunities YOU do.

It’s okay jer, close your door, close your heart, and most importantly, close your wallet. The poor will always be with us. Turn on your TV. It’s okay, everything is okay – go to sleep now. Gasoline may be a little more expensive tomorrow, but you’ll still be able to fill up your SUV.

One day you will wake up, see through the illusion, and realize that you’ve been bought and sold.

But as for me and my household…

This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD. Jeremiah 9:23-24

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 14, 2007 9:01 PM

"Yes , health care needs to be more personal , and also I believe you will less law suits if their are relationships built . Its easy to sue a cold hearted insurance company , but not so easy if a sincere relationship has been made , also sueing the guy who delivered a couple of your kids and told you to look the other way and cough a dozen times is like sueing a friend who has helped through the good and the bad . Not easy to do . . "

I should clarify. When I speak of a long-standing relationship with the insurer, I mean that in the sense that the insurer has every incentive to promote preventitive care early in the relationship, to ensure the health of the patient, etc...

Further, most lawsuits are paid by malpractice insurers. There simply cannot be government-funded health insurance without tort reform. Taxpayers will revolt against padding the pockets of trial lawyers, and I suspect that UHC opponents can simply play the tort card to sink any potential legislation.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 14, 2007 10:55 PM

For those of you who want to keep the Terri Schiavos of the world alive at all costs, pay for the damn care yourself. When it's time to go, check out with a little dignity.

Posted by: Cads | August 15, 2007 2:20 AM

That was my post up above .

Yikes that is frustrating when you forget to fill in the name , I need an aspirin . ;o}

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | August 15, 2007 3:48 AM

I have no faith in insurance companies to do what is right. I find it odd that you do.

p

P , my wife is a day care provider , and deals with the state all the time in regards to care for children . I find you wanting the state to take control of anything as odd .

Also my wife has a friend who has been just diagonised with diabetes 2 I believe. We are helping her out with a cheap car , but she is very obese . Has had surgery on her knee , logical to say its from her overwight , plus other health problems . She has children but has to basically stay home , so overweight she can not even exercise . She wants to have one of those surgeries where you tie up your stomach or whatever . But the state system she is on says no . They rather just keep paying for her health issues caused by her obesity . I think your view the state will be better , well is very odd P ,

I am a state employee , and I see what happens in state agencies , I find it odd that you would consider health care run by the state as being better , I am not talking about coverage for everyone , but a state run program , your experiences have been different then mine .

You want the folks who managed Katrina running your health care system .

Medicare has major problems and expense , and social security is anything but if that is all you have to live on . Time to put away party loyalties and this notion one political party is good , and one is bad . This is too important .

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 8:12 AM

"You want the folks who managed Katrina running your health care system ."

AHHHHH! I was wondering when that great old talking point was going to rear its ugly head and there it is! Katrina? To try to make Katrina and Healthcare two sides of the same coin is yet ANOTHER way that some people have chosen to confuse the debate... By that same token, I could argue, "You want the same people who got us into this crazy war to be in charge of healthcare?" It's an argument that simply isn't relevant because it's two separate issues entirely.

Posted by: James Palmer | August 15, 2007 8:36 AM

"I highly doubt that. They are about finding the cheapest ways of treating problems for as long as possible."

Which, generally speaking, is preventitive care. If an insurance company is on the hook with you for life, they'll offer every possible incentive to avoid costly surgeries down the road. If they are only serving your needs in passing, they have every incentive to pawn you off on the next insurance company.

"For those of you who want to keep the Terri Schiavos of the world alive at all costs, pay for the damn care yourself. When it's time to go, check out with a little dignity"

There were a number of issues at play there, but I'll speak to the general point. For our system to be tenable, we are going to have to make a major decision about care at the end of life. That will affect more than just the Terry Schiavos of the world.

Again, nationalized care or no, unless we make some tough decisions about the elderly, the obese, smokers and so forth, we are going to have an extremely expensive system, more expensive than the one we have today.

You simply cannot hope to eliminate insurance profit margins from the equation, and cut health care costs in half. Or even by 10%.

"I have no faith in insurance companies to do what is right. I find it odd that you do."

I have no faith in unionized, state-run, bureaucracies to do what is right. I find it odd that you do.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 15, 2007 10:15 AM

mick,
as one of those 'demi-god' poor rural southern trial lawyers rick refers to, whose best friend is a radiologist, i can tell you from the inside of this debate that lawsuits have little to do w/ insurance costs and/or people wanting or not wanting to practice in certain areas.

for starters, the tort reformers have pretty much won, the system is very biased at present against victims. 95% of trial lawyers doing med-mal work 15 years ago are not today. the burdens of proof have been raised too high & available defenses too great. in relation to that, despite the number and amount of claims paid or even defended going significantly down, malpractice insurance costs have not come down. most people miss the obvious - 1. insurance companies care about being profitable, period, 2. to that end they spew propaganda about trial lawyers and a justice system run amuck that just aren't true in order to influence public opinion to reduce claims paid (through more tort reform and/or jury perception of 'jackpot justice' plaintiffs), 3. interest rates and stocks prices have much more to do w/ premiums than anything else because this is where premiums are invested.

what is the alternative - more tort reform? caps on damages? 'sorry mam, i know the good doctor severed the nerves to your legs while removing your appendix, yes this was a royal blunder that was not even a known risk inherent with your procedure, but we have caps in this state, here's $250,000 to make it on the rest of your life. hope you have good disability insurance.'

my radiologist friend tells me that on average radiologists will get sued & have a malpractice claim paid against them twice in their lives & he is ok w/ that, especially if he messes up (you mean they mess up from time to time working 24 hour shifts?) & misses something that any other radiologist would have seen & it cost someone their life. even so, it usually takes something much more egregious for a trial lawyer to take the case. the risks are too high (high 5 to low 6 figures to get a case through trial & appeal), the possibility of reward way too low. but big verdicts w/ seriously injured people involved are a result of having one bite at the apple to get all the money needed for care for the rest of your life out of the person responsible for your condition & inability to support yourself.

doctors not doing this or that because of fear of being sued is unfounded. (though we got a great quote out of W on the stump about med-mal reform, "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.") in all the poor, rural places i've lived i've heard the same thing about jackpot justice running doctors out of town. it just isn't true, doctors don't leave these areas (in fact they end up delivering several generations of babies), but many won't come to these areas because the clientele can't afford to pay them.

sorry to take things on a tangent, but 'tort reform' is big propaganda for big business & means denying the poor justice in their lawsuits, a biblical no-no, & also the bane of my profession and livelihood.

Posted by: nad2 | August 15, 2007 11:22 AM

"doctors not doing this or that because of fear of being sued is unfounded." nad2

Really? How would you feel going to work every day knowing that it might be the day that something unforeseen will happen for which you will end up in court defending yourself?

I do, and I don’t like it at all.

“For our system to be tenable, we are going to have to make a major decision about care at the end of life. That will affect more than just the Terry Schiavos of the world.” kevin s.

Oh, the stories I could tell you.

Seek peace and pursue it.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 15, 2007 12:10 PM

anyone else had problems w/ things getting posted? i have had probably six posts either get blocked by beliefnet or get posted & then get taken off in the last 24 hrs, most of which had a link to another page on them about health care. have not posted here much lately, have the rules changed? are we not allowed to link to other pages? have those spamming posts become that big of a problem?

Posted by: nad2 | August 15, 2007 2:37 PM

It absolutely drives up insurance rates for doctors. That is not even disputable.

Two of us are disputing that. We even said why.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 15, 2007 3:22 PM

Lawsuits do drive up the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors. As I wrote in an earlier post, I know neurosurgeons who have never been sued that have had to leave their practices because they could no longer afford the insurance premiums.

No, they do not, at least sufficiently that the doctors cannot afford it. I've already mentioned the real culprit.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 15, 2007 4:21 PM

"Two of us are disputing that. We even said why."

You made the point that insurance companies need to increase margins when the stock market goes south. You framed it pejoratively, but that is the substance of what you said. When the stock market goes down , insurance companies do charge a higher margin. However, again, this margin has remained relatively constant over time, and cannot account for the rise in cost of malpractice insurance.

I should say that this is not reasonably disputable.

"but a neurosurgeon w/ no malpractice claims having to go out of business makes me think something other than insurance premiums are the culprit."

What would those reasons be? You are denying reality if you do not believe that specialists are leaving the field because of malpractice insurance premiums. Neuro's anecdotal evidence is backed up by a number of news stories and studies, so I would side with him.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 15, 2007 4:57 PM

One of the benefits of the NHS is that it has considerable muscle when it comes to negotiating the cost of drugs from companies. A recent example is that a new cancer drug is costing the NHS an amount on a sliding scale based on effectiveness.

However, the bottom line for me is that I would rather live in a country with fairly high taxation but one in which children were not denied health care, housing etc. I would rather have the risk on some benefit abuse than see kids stave. It is simple for me really.

Posted by: Ian | August 15, 2007 5:24 PM

nad2,

You know, maybe to a lawyer, the idea of being sued doesn’t sound like a big deal. To a nurse, it is career-ending. You seem to have this attitude that being sued is inevitable for a doctor. Maybe a doc can bounce back from a law suit – financially, and without damaging her or his practice. I’ll argue that that isn’t the case for a nurse.

I don’t know whether you’ve heard or not, but there is a nursing shortage in this country that is only getting worse. I’ve been a nurse for 15 years and I can’t wait to get out of bedside nursing which, incidentally, I love.

That isn’t a real strong recruiting position: become a nurse, work your butt off, and spend your career worrying about the mistake you will make that will end it.

Granted, I’ve known some incompetent nurses. I have seen a patient suffer severe neurological damage because a nurse didn’t realize that patient was deteriorating – after I told that nurse several times what was going on and what that nurse (gender neutral) needed to do about it. I was too busy running my butt off taking care of my own patients to get in there and take over. I managed not to get sued because I saw it coming and I ducked. Some of my colleagues weren’t so lucky. My proximity alone put me at risk. Never mind the negligence of the doctors who didn’t answer their pages and never showed their faces on the unit while this was going on.

I’m sorry, your being a lawyer does not buy you much credibility with me on this one. It’s like reading that divorce isn’t so bad on a divorce lawyer’s website.

“Why do mal practice insurance costs more for say baby doctors , then other doctors” Mick Sheldon

Why is malpractice insurance more expensive for neurosurgeons?

Because of the high liability of neurosurgery and obstetrics. If the increases in cost were driven by factors other than liability, then the increases would be distributed evenly across specialties.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 15, 2007 5:56 PM

neuro,
don't know if you saw buried in my message to mick, but the same offer applies. i am trying to parse out fact from fiction. and because i am a lawyer does not mean i have a callous perspective on the impact of being sued. quite the contrary. i deal with the personal realities of suing and being sued, plaintiff and defendant, everything on the line for people, on a daily basis, and i cry with clients, cook them food, listen to their worries, and go out on a limb constantly trying to make sure the equities and the humanity of each situation are at the forefront. if i came off as callous in saying i have malpractice insurance, our mistakes matter, & i'll take being sued over being shot, my apologies.

Posted by: nad2 | August 15, 2007 6:27 PM

"All of this comes out of my taxes, of course, but I pay considerably less for it than I did when I had a good corporate health care plan in the States before coming over here. No co-payments, no limits, just good treatment by caring professionals when I need it. "

You get healthcare. We get tanks, battleships and wars of agression for our tax money. At the same time the conservatives complain about how "lazy" people get free healthcare on welfare and in emergency rooms. Gotta love the good ole USA. The greatest country on the the face of God's green earth.

Posted by: Jerseykid | August 15, 2007 8:08 PM

well I reckon i'll let the quest for truth die here, as that does not appear to be the object of most people, but rather to just look for information to further support their point of view, which we all do. in any event, check out the book or some of prof baker's resources online if you don't want to fork over the dough or time for the book. suffice it to say I think fearmongering is highly effective as propaganda in all circumstances, including and especially tort reform. back to universal health care discussion, my apologies for taking us down this unfruitful road.

Posted by: nad2 | August 16, 2007 12:18 PM

Jim: You just took a survey with a sample size of n=1.

Posted by: Stephen | August 16, 2007 3:57 PM

Jim,

Glad you're on the mend.

I'm an American married to a Canadian citizen. I truly appreciate the Canadian medical system--and have been blessed many times through it.

However, I would still quibble with the word "free" in your blog. Your treatment was not free--it was paid for by someone else. That's not a bad thing, necessarily, but best to keep this clear--socialized medicine is not "free," but then neither is the U.S. system (and that is an understatement!)

Thanks for the chance to comment.

Blessings,

DaveH

Posted by: DaveH | August 16, 2007 3:58 PM

Jim --

I read your description of the ER in Britain and your experience with socialized medicine with keen interest. I am an American citizen who has lived in Canada for more than 25 years. I have heard all the American warnings about socialized medicine ... but in those 25 years I have never experienced anything but excellent care and medical treatment.

I was a graduate student in my early years here in Canada. It was such a privilege to be able to take my young kids to the ER or to the doctor and not have to worry about hefty payment just to find out whether the cough he or she had was just a bad cough or was whooping cough.

Once when we were visiting with my mother in Illinois, one of the kids got a minor cut and I wanted to take him to the ER -- my mother said we should go to her nurse friend in the clinic across the street. The nurse looked at the cut and said it didn't need stitches and put a bandage on it. When I asked mom why she urged me to go to the clinic, she asked her nurse friend -- who charged us nothing -- how much it would have cost to have my son looked at in the ER across the street. She said, "about $60-$65" -- and that was more than 20 years ago. (So the price has probably gone up). I was used, though, to Canada's socialized medicine.

I guess my point is that for young families, struggling with finances, it shouldn't be a struggle whether you can "financially afford" to have your child attended to by a physician ... but in much of the USA, that is precisely the choice young and poor families must always make. In the socialized medical scene I live in, that is never even a question.

And I'm glad for it ... give me Canada's socialized medicine structure over what prevails in the USA anytime!

Posted by: Jim Payton | August 16, 2007 4:02 PM

In Pennsylvania we currently have a bill in the house (#1660) & the Seante (#300) that would give complete health care to all. It is not socialized medicine. The doctors, hospitals & other health care professionals are private. Everyone pays. Those making $100 per month & those making $3 million per month pay 3% of earnings. Businesses pay 10% of payroll. The savings that makes it affordable to all is the middle man is removed. This puts a huge amount of money towards the delivery of health care to all instead of the funding of an inefficient insurance industry.

Not socialized medicine, but an answer to our current crisis.

Posted by: Cindy Purvis | August 16, 2007 4:04 PM

Never forget that NOTHING is free. There is a cost involved. When the government pays for it, it is we the people who are the government and it comes out of our pockets somehow.

The problem with thinking of a socialized or any other kind of centralized system in this country is that this country is so much larger and more populated than any of the countries cited as examples. Not to mention more diverse in every way possible.

Freedom is a right in this country. The right to pursue happiness is a right in this country. Services that involve paying specially trained people for their time is not a right. Morality and fairness in our society suggest that those services should be available equally. How that happens should be more equitably determined on a state or local level than on a national scale.

Once the national politicians become involved, expect some very slow moving cogs to frustrate us all!

Kim Glenn

Posted by: Kim | August 16, 2007 4:10 PM

Your treatment is unrepresentative - to get a Doctor to accompany you to X - Ray ?

I guess you are a nice polite guy, you are white, American explain yourself clearly and carefully.

Frankly it is easier to deal with you and have you out of the door a happy proselyte for the NHS than to go through the paperwork that should have been undertaken.

I am a great believer in the NHS, my one experience in hospital in the US (Indianapolis) after an asthma attack was a revelation (complicated because I have Type II Diabetes).

1 thing alone is wonderful (hey! I don't know if this is universal)every person dealing with me said un failingly politely

Hi! My name is Sue Smith, I am a healthcare assistant, I am going to inject you with X units of insulin in your left arm (swipes her badge bar code and phial barcodes) Is that OK ?. Injects. Asks if I feel OK ... here is the bell to ring if you have problems.

The NHS ? A nurse (more than likely stolen from our ex-colonies) with none too perfect command of English arrives, asks you to roll up your sleeve. In jects. Exits.

Driven maybe by the demands of a litigious patient / lawyer led customer base maybe but re-assuring, polite and very, very welcome.

Personal choice - US. Personal belief - socialized medecine that is made to work.

Posted by: Edward Teague | August 16, 2007 4:16 PM

My eldest sister Ruth had a tremendous experience with the British health system in Northern Ireland. She experienced an aneurism in one of two arteries connected to the liver. She collapsed and her BP was practically nonexistent. She was rushed to the Royal Victorian Hospital in Belfast where a team of surgeons was ready. This occured on a Sunday! After 5 hours of surgery she was placed in ICU. Then back to surgery for another hour. Several days in ICU, then on to a ward. Altogether, about two weeks in hospital. When Ruth was released, she told them she was a member of Kaiser "back home." The hospital's answer, "Well, that's interesting." The outcome was, no bills for my sister, no bills for Kaiser. No bills for anything. Over the years, she has kept in touch with the Chief Surgeon at Christmas time. Ain't Socialized Medicine wonderful? You bet your life! Literally, in my sister's case!

Posted by: frank67 | August 16, 2007 4:18 PM

Funny how when one writes about socialized medicine, or universal single-payer healthcare, the naysayers show up in force. And gosh are they well spoken sometimes, even if in a very conversational colloquial manner.

I posted a piece on Universal Healthcare in California on my blog at www.ChristianDemocrat.us and got two lengthy responses from a gentleman by the name of Tim. All the scary stuff, all the seemingly well reasoned points denying the ability of such a system to work in America.

Oddly, when I pointed out that I felt he was probably a paid lobbyist for the insurance industry I never heard another word from him.

The medical insurance companies are using the new media to the best of their abilities and they are quite savvy. Isn't it nice that we can see through their rhetoric and know that yes, it can work well here, too!

Posted by: Rich Hall | August 16, 2007 4:20 PM

Wow, this is a hot topic judging from the many posts.

Just a few quick words on this. Yes, perhaps Jim had an idealized experience but in my book socialized medicine is ideal when you compare it with the materialistic medical system we have here in the US.

I am an American who lives most of the year in France. I have three young boys and they have had their fair share of doctor's visits. In fact my oldest boy came down with a deadly, rare disease in his second week of life and we spent have spent a lot of time in the French, socialized, public hospitals. The surroundings are usually not very posh but the care is always first class and the bills are miniscule compared to those in the U.S.

When I come home to the states I stress when my children show the slightest sign of illness because I know a simple doctor's visit will cost me at least $100. When my mother came to visit in France after a camping trip, she started to worry because she had been bitten by something and was starting to feel ill. A doctor's visit for 20 euro and a bag full of medicine at the laughingly low price of 12 euro and she was much better.

I am not saying that medicine should necessarily be free but it certainly should be more affordable and most importantly available to the masses and not just the rich.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2007 4:20 PM

Just so readers know Jim's isn't a one-off experience with the British NHS: I had virtually the same experience when I was in London two summers ago. On the flight over I had the sense there was something in my eye, and I thought it would wash out, but it didn't, and after about 5 days the white of my eyeball was completely red. I went to the A&E at Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, and was immediately referred to a ophthalmologist. He diagnosed it as one of the worst cases of uveitis he had ever seen. There was enormous inflammation, so much so he could not see to the back of the eyeball with the optical microscope and so he used an ultrasonic probe to see if there were inflammation there. He injected steroids into the four quadrants of my eye to quell the inflammation and prescribed steroidal eyedrops. I was given a second appointment two days later to check on progress and the inflammation had decreased enormously. As happened with Jim Wallis, they gave me a photocopy of what they had done to take with me for my ophthalmologist at home. When I saw my ophthalmologist back in Honolulu it was easy to see he was impressed by the treatment I had got in London, and he said that ophthalmologist probably saved the vision in that eye by his prompt and effect response. I have since noted on Wikipedia that uveitis is estimated to be responsible for about 10% of the blindness in the U.S.A.

In my experience, like Jim's, they only asked my name and address, and my only expense was a copay for the eyedrops.

The hospital was bright and airy, with lots of original art on the walls, and the people were friendly and efficient. They even had good cappuccino.

This experience reflects the same kind of service I got with the NHS when I lived in London for about 20 years in the 1970s and 80s. During this time we had a baby and saw the system from that perspective as well. We had a house call by a doctor within an hour of phoning when my baby son woke us up on a Sunday morning with swelling behind his ears that we new parents were certain must be an ear infection that could lead to permanent hearing loss. It took the doctor 2 minutes to reassure us that the swelling was related to a rash he had, and that the swelling would disappear under the treatment we were giving him for the rash. It did.

Posted by: Bob Joseph | August 16, 2007 4:30 PM

I've read the blog and most of the comments here. A few points of my own:

* I agree with those who rightly say that jackpot juries are not the reason why people come to, or leave, a state. Here in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, no one - not one - person has won a trial against a doctor in a malpractice suit in nearly 40 years. As James Thurber used to say, you could look it up. People live in fear of a doctor making a mistake and there being no alternative. I personally know of one woman who was given the wrong size artificial hip and attempted to sue. Forgeddaboutit.

The lawsuit, rightly or wrongly, is a way to hold doctors accountable for their actions. Just like it does with everyone else in every other field of work.

I also agree it's easier to vote out a congressman every two years than to deal with an insurance company whose reason for existence isn't my or anyone else's health, but to make their stockholders wealthier.

* I have lived without medical insurance most of my adult life. I too, remember the shame I felt having to admit I didn't have the insurance for myself (my wife and kids were covered under my wife's employer's policy - but if she covered me it would have literally wipe out her entire paycheck). I had to live with a sharp pain in my arms for almost a year until I could get my neck operated on.

* I have lived with socialized medicine. It's called the US Military. For the most part, I received excellent care. Were there horror stories? Yes - like the corpsmen who sutured a drunk guy's ear to a cot frame, or calling up med students and making them senior medical officers on large amphibious ships even before their internship. But the Navy, from what I recall (this is 1978-83), did their best to improve the system.

The bottom line: socialized medicine is worth the cost and the effort in terms of time, money and political will. How can we say we are all God's children if we deny them something as basic as healthcare if they can't afford to pay?

Posted by: Scot Celley | August 16, 2007 4:38 PM

Here is another good experience, about 50 years ago. I spent a year as a postdoctoral fellow at Cambridge University. I developed a foot infection as a result of hiking in the Scottish highlands during some miserable weather. I had developed a boil which required lancing and was referred to a physician by the college nurse. My visit to the doctor was even more cordial than such visits in the U.S. which was embellished by the offer of a glass of scotch whiskey to help me through the procedure. My only complaint was that this was before extensive use of antibiotics, and it was required that healing be helped by having it packed in a glob of hot clay. All went well, I received no bill, and was impressed by this experience with the U.K. sovialized medical system.

Posted by: Richard Stein | August 16, 2007 4:45 PM

With all the focus on tort law, it seems to me that that the point raised by Jim Wallis' article is being lost: does everyone have the right to health care or is it only the wealthy who have that right? Given that this is a faith-based blog, I thought I would quote from Andrew Paquin's posting on the issue of his being fired by a college that calls itself Christian: I quote it in the hopes that this will encourage you to read his entire post:

"Let me say it this way. In Christ, you and I are set free, not for the individual pursuit of happiness, but set free for the collective pursuit of holiness. We are called by God not for ourselves, but for the glory of His Kingdom, and for the service of others. We, the fortunate ones of this great country have somehow forgotten that it is impossible to serve others while at the same time believing we are better than the others we are called to serve. Selfishness, greed, gluttony - these are epidemic in our culture. These might be the real threats to our way of life, but because they stare at us in the mirror, we are reluctant to say so. Instead, we write off the prophets among us as "liberal", "radical", or even "anti-American." I can hear Amos. Can you?"

Posted by: bren | August 16, 2007 4:51 PM

As Americans, my family and I have had absolutely great rapid care when living in England, Austria, and France. Once in Athens, Greece, my wife had a frightening heart condition; she was transported by ambulance to the hospital where she stayed several days, and the doctors and nurses were extremely competent and supportive. It cost not a sense.

RIchard

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2007 5:02 PM

If you think that a government run health system will lower overall costs you are mistaken. We're not talking about the rates you pay for medical insurance (or the taxes you'd pay if it was provided by the government), but the overall cost. There are lots of reasons for rising costs that have mostly been cited above (many profit layers, malpractice suits, etc.), but the largest reason is the urge to want the best. Things like new medications to cure disease (made by drug companies with financial incentives to be the best) and better MRI machines (working on one that will magnify up to 1000 times a normal machine so doctors can look at cells...with financial incentives to be the best). Everybody wants to have the best care possible, but nobody wants to pay for it. Why do you think the best doctors in the world come to the U.S. to research and practice medicine(and don't try to argue that they don't come here)? It's a combination of salary and the ability to work with the newest and best technology.

I agree that there are many problems with our current system. However, to think that going to national health care would solve that is very naive. If we go to a government run system, the overall costs would go up, and effeciency would go down. I have a hard time thinking of one thing run by the governement that is effecient. The only difference is that everybody would get it. If you want a microcosm of this look at the states that have the most problems as far as insurance rates, quality of care, etc. These are the states where there is a lack of insurance companies.

In California, where I live, we have the lowest HMO rates in the country. How is that possible with immigration issues, poverty, lots of malpractice suits, and all the other problems that California has? It's called competition. It's called a free market. More insurance carriers than most states. The insurance carriers with the highest rates (Blue Shield and Kaiser), are the two that are non-profit (i.e. most comparable to something run by the govt.). Makes you think doesn't it.

Now I'm not saying that our current system is perfect, but it'll be a lot better to tweak it than to scrap the whole thing. I propose that the state requires everybody to have it (similar to auto insurance), thus increasing the pool of people, spreading risk, etc. Simple insurance principles. It should be no different than the principles for life insurance, home owners insurance, etc. Those that cannot afford it will be subsidized with a combination of employer tax incentives to provide it, and government funding based on total income.

To sum this up, the total cost of medical care in the U.S. is not going to go down. Patient's want the best, doctor's want the best, drug and medical supply companies will spend millions in R&D to give us the best. That will never change in this country. It's called the entrepreneurial spirit. What will keep it at a reasonable cost for the citizens of the U.S...competition!

We need everybody covered to spread out the risk! We need more insurance carriers, more drug companies, more medical supply companies and more hospitals (Santa Barbara has the highest per bed per day cost in the country because there is only one hospital in the city and they can charge whatever they please...and insurance carriers pass it on to you and I).

I know this is a bit of a rant, but I'll break it down simply. If you think that the overall costs of the health care system will go down with the introduction of national health care, you are mistaken. Somebody is going to pay for it, the questions is who!

As a brain surgeon that I know put it, "Universal Health Care would be just like having Universal Food for everybody. Except people could only eat at McDonald's. The good and the bad!"

I don't totally agree with his hyperbole, but you get the picture.

Posted by: Steve | August 16, 2007 5:06 PM

OK, I skimmed most of the posts, as there are a lot, but I didn't see any docs responding. So here I go.

The hyperbole on both sides of this debate sickens me. Most people in the UK do fine with the NHS. That must be a given with every discussion for it to be a valid discussion. Most people in the US do fine with our hodgepodge system. That must also be a given, and if you just look at real stats, not the twisted ones we see so often, you will know that this is true.

But there are huge differences in expectations between the cultures. The American culture expects every disease to be cured, every time, with no mistakes--otherwise, look for the nearest lawyer. The UK and European cultures have the expectation that death is part of life, and not everyone will be made whole again. They tend to accept wait times and refusals based on the age and general health of the individual. We in the US don't seem to allow that--it would be discrimination! I am not finding fault in the UK mindset, by the way. It is more congruent with life and biology than ours, by quite a bit.

The statement made above that the poor are bused to the nearest shelter, without receiving care, is simply a lie. It is illegal under federal law to dump patients or to refuse them care in an emergency room. Any hospital doing so is promptly smacked with backbreaking fines or put out of business. The poor are seen as promptly as anyone else, although the tendency to get simple primary care in the ER is going to generate a long wait. It would do so even if you have the best insurance in the world.

Yesterday, my stepfather came to my office for shoulder pain, thinking it was arthritis. The delay between my office and the cath lab was approximately 45 minutes, and the ER folks did not know he was related to me. Nor would it have made a difference. He had his bypass surgery this morning. Match that, Brits! He'll be out of the hospital in a week, back to cutting down trees in his yard in a couple of months.

Regarding income, I could live quite nicely on the income the general practitioners make in Great Britain. And I would see fewer patients and have a much less stressful lifestyle. So don't bore me with the lies about all the docs being against universal health care. Most of us would welcome it, just not the academic and treatment constraints that we would have to negotiate under such a system.

So most of you need to take a deep breath and realize that the system we have is the one we chose, just as they did in the UK. As one wag put it, 98% of folks are hardworking, honest, decent people. The other 2% give us all a bad name. But then, we elected them....

Posted by: Steve | August 16, 2007 5:13 PM

I live in NYC and have been to my local emergency room twice. Both times the care and treatment were fine, but the hassel about payment afterward -- between the hospital and my insurance company -- was huge and incredibly time-consuming, though not, in the long run, expensive. ... I'm just back from three weeks in the UK -- London and South -- and had occasion to, like the Rev. use the National Health Service: once for ears and once for eyes. My experiences, both times, were exact parallels with Rev. Wallis's -- including the not-used water bottle and the non-read novel, the note to my doctor, the competence and professionalism of the staff at all levels, and the No Cost finale. ... Why isn't providing this level of care a priority in the US? Why have our political and social leaders been such pushovers for the Insurance Establishment? ... That Britain's national health service has reached the positive level it has in the past several years is a direct result of their Labor Government making National Health a priority. It took a while to fix what Mrs. Thatcher had tried to deconstruct through Privatization. ... Admittedly, anecdotal evidence shouldn't be the last word. But when anecdote underscores statistical evidence -- as it seems to in the case of the UK's National Health and some other countries -- I think we ought to begin to organize for change in the US.

Posted by: Robert in NYC | August 16, 2007 5:18 PM

I loved reading what Jim wrote about his experience with socialized medicine. I lived in Germany for four years and had such excellent care at the many doctors I went to for allergies, back problems, and the birth of two babies. In fact, I chose to have our second baby in Germany on purpose because of the longer hospital stay and in-home midwife service after coming home from the hospital. We never had to pay a thing, except for our very low health insurance premium.

Since returning to the States we have spent thousands on our health care. My husband earns very well and we have insurance, but it still is a burden, as the insurance does not cover everything. We wonder on almost a daiy basis how someone who earns minimum wage could aford decent health services - even with insurance! The co-pays and deductibles are just so high -and we to anyone who, in an emergency,or by accident, should wind up at a doctor out of network!

I agree with Jim when he says that we are not being told the whole truth here about socialized medicine. I have lived it, and know that it's nothing like what we hear - the German version, anyway.

Posted by: Kim Gottschild | August 16, 2007 5:36 PM

As I Canadian I read this article with a little bit of dismay over the emotion attached to this for many Americans. In Canada this is a system that we chose a long time ago and is considered a normative to all of us. Though it is surely full of its own problems and weaknesses I really cannot confess to knowing ANYONE (left or right, liberal or conservative, Christian or secular) here that would desire its removal. Many would have ideas as to its improvement, but its demise... I don't hear about.

When I hear about "socialist" medical care... personally I have to stop and try to figure out what on earth the poster is talking about? Surely we in Canada know what communism is as well as anyone in the US?? To date in our history there has never been any public concensus to embrace Communism... for probably the same reasons you do not desire it in the States. My conclusion is that the term "socialist" is used as a fear term... not at all based on realities.

Ultimately health care is about just that... health care. We have been blessed by the Health Care System that we have chosen here, and desire to improve it and make it even better for all Canadians. My prayer is that in the midsts of this "hot n heavy" debate that you seem to be having in the US, that the bottom line of health care for all individuals will not be lost in the middle of all of the steam being flung around.

Posted by: Darren | August 16, 2007 5:39 PM

To my knowledge no one is proposing socialized medicine as a solution to the problems with health care in the US although we do have a system that is socialized medicine in the US. That is the VA system. With socialized medicine the governement owns the facilities, the equipment in the facilities and pays all salaries for doctors and others employed in the facility.

The US has single payer systems for some in the US. Those programs are Medicare and Medicare. With single payer all claims are submitted to the government who is the insurer. It is my understanding what is being proposed by some is single payer for all.

We do need to get terms straight and correct when beginning a discussion on how to solve what is an ailing health care system.

We have a system in place where tax dollars are collected from most everyone including the uninsured, the uninsurable and the underinsured with those tax dollars being used to assign greater value to some lives than to others.

I am seventy years old and in the Medicare system. I am aware, as are most others in the Medicare system, that the lion's share of my health care is paid for with tax dollars. My contribution for Medicare and my purchase of a Medicare supplement insurance policy covers only a fraction of the costs of insuring me. I can think of no moral argument to make that justifies my life being assigned a greater value than the life of a six year old, a thirty year old or anyone else.

Posted by: Sue | August 16, 2007 6:07 PM

I was hospitalized at the University of Dusseldorf hospital in Germany after my eardrums exploded in flight.

First the ambulance drove me to two different hospitals which refused to treat an American who was not, obviously, a citizen of an EU member country.

The University took me and I waited 8 hours on a chair, in the clothes I'd been wearing in flight. No food, no water, just me, on a hard chair, surviving on the duty-free chocolates I'd purchased.

I was hospitalized and my treatment was dubious. T No towels or nightwear or hospital gowns were provided. The lady sharing my room asked her kids to bring towels and clothing for me, and the second day, I snuck out with IV pole which I disconnected myself and took a cab downtown to buy some clothing. the room was sink only and the staff yelled at me when I dared bathe!

Each morning a finance person came in and harangued me for cash. When I told her I didn't have cash and that they could contact my insurance I was kicked out of the hospital at 8 PM at night.

Fortunately I was born in Germany and know the language, so could survive. When I returned to the US, my doctor was appalled that I'd even been hospitalized and furthermore, I received bills from the hospital and the ambulance because I was not a citizen of an EU country.

European docs also tend to keep people in hospital a lot longer. And then send them off for "the cure" at some spa.

Posted by: EMM | August 16, 2007 6:23 PM

Dear Canadian: Of COURSE the word "socialist" is used as a "fear term". Of COURSE nobody who has had access to universal health coverage would conceive of getting rid of it. Believe me, "steam" is not ALL that is being "flung around" in the health care debate. The reason why there has to be a constant stream of propaganda in the US about the evils of "socialized" (often revised to "socialist") medicine is because there are "industries" that support MANY billionaires, whose stock would go from astronomically priced to worth nothing if there were universal health coverage in this country. I went to medical school, and did both my pediatric residency and my sub-specialty training in the US, worked for years as a clinician in the public sector in the US, the "safety net" that gathers in the uninsured. (Want to see children "left behind"? Just look at healthcare in the US). And to the gentleman who thinks that you can just walk into an ER with a sore foot or a heart attack and you will not be charged, you are mistaken. They may see you (for the heart attack), or refer you to a clinic (where your insurance info or your fee will be extracted before anybody looks at you). If you get treatment in the ER, or admitted, you WILL be billed, and they will dun you, hound you, get at your wages, and do everything short of sending someone out to beat it out of you. Even the ambulance that got you off the floor and took you to the hospital will be sending increasingly more threatening letters. And that bit, Donny, about how in the UK, the Rev just got fast service because he introduced himself as "a famous Leftist religious figure" is such a joke. No offense, Rev. Wallis, but I don't think Jim Wallis is exactly a household word.

Posted by: Consuelo M. Beck-Sague, MD | August 16, 2007 6:31 PM

First, anybody who thinks that long waits in emergency rooms are a unique function of countries with national health care clearly hasn't been in a busy ER in the United States with a patient who was healthy enough to walk into the ER (even with a lot of assistance). And even patients who arrive at the ER by ambulance, if it doesn't look like they have an IMMEDIATELY life-threatening situation, tend to wait for hours. In the past few years, I've spent more time in ER's than I ever wanted to for members of my family, and long waits are far more the rule than the exception, at least in the area where I live.

I've known a number of people who have lived in countries with universal health care, and NONE of them have said that our system is superior. I also know an American couple who were in the UK when the wife had an appendicitis attack. They're business owners and relatively conservative Republicans, but they came back singing the praises of the British health care system in basically the same manner as Jim Wallis does here.

Second, those who say that what drives up our cost of health care is that "Americans demand the best" tend to ignore the large percentage of our health care dollars that go to pay for insurance company profits and overhead, not to mention the costs incurred by hospitals and doctors' offices in trying to collect from the myriad insurance oompanies in our system. And these costs to the health care providers are magnified by the fact that for-profit insurance companies tend to look for ways not to pay for services, just as they tend to look for ways not to insure people who are most likely to actually need health care. The administrative costs for the Medicare program are a small fraction of those of the private insurance companies.

Finally, one of the reasons for the long waits in many ER's is the large number of people in our society who don't have health insurance and therefore can't afford to go to a personal physician -- either to take care of chronic problems before they become an emergency, or to take care of their child's ear infection before it becomes so bad that it is a genuine emergency.

I don't understand how any American can in good conscience support a system under which we are the only developed country in the world where people face the prospect of personal bankruptcy because of medical bills from a serious illness, where we have the worst infant mortality, the lowest life expectancies, and the lowest healthy life expectancies in the developed world, and where we pay more per capita and as a percent of our GDP for health care than any other country in the developed world -- and yet ALL of those things are true.

Posted by: Lee in Maryland | August 16, 2007 6:41 PM

I'm glad you had a good experience, and I suspect it is typical of the way such situations are handled in Britain. I, personally, am all for universal health care, and can see no way around it ultimately. The thing I fear most greatly is the way it will look and be implemented once the US government gets hold of it. The only thing we have to fear is the US government itself.

Posted by: Sam | August 16, 2007 6:49 PM

I am sorry but British people like to complain about the NHS and health care stories are always big news here (rather like the weather). However, with some exceptions, when you ask them about their own experience, it is nearly always a very positive one.

I am happy to pay taxes (which are far too low anyway) and which do not impede a healthy and creative economy (US health care costs are a huge impediment to US economic efficiency). I, and virtually everyone here, is happy that health care is free at the point of delivery for everyone. Although some hospitals do need to improve, I have found in my own experience and in the experience of those close to me who have had complex health care needs, the NHS is very good provider.

Jim obviously had a very good experience (and yes, he is not famous here at all - no one who is religious is, as we are mostly a thoroughly agnostic bunch) but such treatment is by far the norm here. The system does fail people (and I would say the lack of resources given to mental health care is a serious problem at the moment and I deplore the fact that dental health is not what is was - you are now charged for many procedures unless you are on benefit). For the most part the NHS is very effective and the people who work there very kind and committed.

I love much about the US, and on a personal level I think it is hard to find a group of people so consistently generous and friendly (whether left or right, religious or not) but the disparity in health care between those with and those without money is a great source of shame - and frankly baffling to an outsider.

Posted by: Justin Meggitt | August 16, 2007 6:56 PM

I am an American citizen living in Canada for over 2 years now. My husband is on work permit. The healthcare and dental care is excellent. My daughter was actually diagnosed very carefully and rigorously here with 6 visits-- with mild autism. She has received FREE therapy for hours each week and has improved hugely. And for all of this worth probably easily 40,000 dollars, we have not paid one bill other than our monthly cost for insurance... 108 bucks for a family of 3. I know we will NOT get a 20K per year stipend for autism therapy for her while under 6 years of age as she gets here when we move back to the US in a month. I do not take the healthcare system for granted that I've experienced here. Americans have been duped. I am in this fight for life for socialized medicine in the US now that I know how good it really is.

Posted by: Lisa G | August 16, 2007 6:59 PM

I suppose I should not be surprized by the amount of inneundo, stereotypes, fear mongering propaganda, and spleen expressed in reaction to one person's testimonial about one episode of disease care services delivered in UK. Or how that is personalized in the form of attacks in attributions of "liberal", or "progressive". The rage, and fear, is disproportionate, and inappropriate, however. I note, for example, the punitive techniques used to train disease care providers in America, and how often the "M" (malpractice) word is used to push students/trainees back "into line" with the instructor's control needs. Or the near psychotic fear of attorney's instilled. No interruptions in the co-dependence, please. Some political agendas certainly take advantage of this fear mongering technique.

The "tort crisis" in America is largely a fabrication of insurance companies playing on that fear, socialized into the disease care providers in this country, aka greed. The industry's own numbers show this to be true. The number of jury cases has remained flat for a dozen years, and the awards have risen only slightly, certainly disproportionately low to the claims of the insurance companies' need to increase their premiums, for professional liability or major medical coverage. In America, the bottom line is the bottom line. Big Pharma has also exploitively capatilized on this fear as well, and avoided, when possible, the risks of their often marginally effective products. Health care is dangerous to your health. Still, tens of millions of Americans don't have access to disease care services, or don't seek such services until late in the course of their illness, and at points of delivery that are unnecessarily expensive, and less effective. Certain political agendas take advantage of these situations. We have been rationing disease care services in America for many decades. The problem has been how we rationed them, and who did that, driven by what motives.

Most of the developed countries, that have public schools, and developed "western (scientific) style" disease care systems, have reasonable ratios of disease care providers to the population. Almost all of them have public funded disease care delivery systems, or a few, mixed systems, and have little problems with effective, efficient, and routine access to care, even for foreigners. Most are completely free, or at very little direct expense seen by the recipients of care. All operate at overall costs to that country of at least half or less than ours in America. Every single one of these countries has better herd health indices than the US, every one, if you believe that there is any causal relationship between herd health and disease care services. These citizens have access to disease care services throughout their populations. All Americans don't. Yet considering all public sources, government in American pays for about 41% of the two trillion a year disease care budget already. The American disease care market does not approximate a supply and demand model. Some political agendas exploit this situation.

Evidence based disease care practices in America have tended to use the private underwriters bottom line as the "evidence" to ration disease care, but have not passed that margin on to the consummers. Thus the market dynamic above, and the rationing of care by denial of access to any care for some of the American population, leaving county ER's packed, with long waits, providing care that should have been accessed elsewhere, and often much earlier. The private underwriters have tried to pass as much of the financial risk off on the providers as possible, without being willing to accept any of the medical risk on themselves. Comparatively speaking, American private, fee for service, disease care, controlled by private underwriters isn't functioning very well. Its certainly not evidence based, on the most appropriate client centered evidence for decision making about treatment, or effectiveness.

Perhaps a little more faith, grace, and real compassion injected into this dialogue would be helpful? As well as realistic consideration of the available data, not fear mongering, power agendas, professional/personal greed and narcissism. Keep up your Faith.

Dr Patrick H Herndon

Posted by: Dr Patrick H Herndon | August 16, 2007 7:08 PM

I live in Australia we have a mix of the 2 systems one is an optional private health system the other is universal public health.

Yes there are problems with public health but it provides a safety net for people. I hear from a friend in the USA he is selling items on Ebay to fund his cancer treatments! In Australia my mother had 5 bouts of cancer, 3 major operations, radium and chemo therapies and it did not cost her or our family one cent. The care was magnificent. Given a choice of paying a little extra tax to have mine or someone else's mother, father sister brother or friend cared for and returned to health for free, I will happily pay.

This would seem to be the right and "Christian" thing to do.

And I am an atheist.

Universal health care should be a right for every person living in a civilized world.

Posted by: doug Steley | August 16, 2007 7:24 PM

It is certainly true that no one in the US will be allowed to die because they cannot afford health care or because they have no insurance. many years ago, I was in graduate school and thus not gainfully employed. My wife became pregnant and , because we met income guidlines, she received maternity care from St Francis Hospital in Hartford , Ct. We had a minimal fee to pay for the clinic. Toward the end of her pregnancy, she developed a major complication. That complication was Pancreatitis. Literally, her pancreas and her gall bladder were eating themselves up. She was given major medical care including delay of the delivery of our son. It was quite clear she was near death. But the heroic measures used by the hospital saved her. I later saw some of the medical billings (the first day of her hospitalization cost on normal billing rates $100000 .Yet when she was discharged three weeks later, the only charge given to us was the $100 that had been the agreed on fee for her prenatal care and the delivery. Clearly, St Francis ate the charges. We are eternally grateful for that. I will say that this ought to be in place for any and all people requiring any kind of medical care. Health care IS a right that the richest nation on the globe ought to be able to provide for all of its citiens ----rich and poor. Don Berghuis

Posted by: Don Berghuis | August 16, 2007 8:21 PM

Just as anecdotal evidence isn't good for medicine, so it isn't good for measuring a health-care system. But just look at the big picture--France has the best healthcare in the world, for half as much as we pay. What we have now is a system that serves far from all, is full of waste. It's skewed against prevention and toward overpriced drugs and procedures. This is not something "the market" can cure. If we want a health care system that is efficient, loving and truthful, we're on the wrong road, indeed.

Posted by: Amy Houchen | August 16, 2007 8:36 PM

I read Jim Wallis's experience in the UK with great interest. Only last week, my 7 year old granddaughter fell and hit her head in London and became quite groggy and dizzy for several hours. She was rushed to the hospital there, treated by a team of doctors, given a catscan, and (to make a long story short)eventually released, but only after the doctors were completely satisfied that she was okay. According to my daughter, everyone treated both of them with professionalism, timeliness, and friendliness. And, the whole experience was free. While it is not a system without its share of problems, the philosophy that everyone deserves professional health care is refreshing--not to mention moral.

Posted by: S J Gerow | August 16, 2007 8:49 PM

I have heard similar stories from friends who have parents who live in Canada and Norway.
When my wife and I were in Norway in 1976 and 1986, we were told that if something were to happen to us, our "visit" to the hospital or the doctor would be at the expense of the country. America could learn a lot from other countries!
After watching "Sicko," I truly feel that universal health care for all citizens is the only way to go. Yes, health care costs money, but the taxes are worth the services. England seems to have better urgent care services, better elder care services and better child care than the U.S. And their doctors make a decent living and they are happy. It just seems to me that the insurance companies, the lobby for health care and the "union for the medical community," the AMA, dictate what will take place. And what takes place is not always in the best interest of the citizen. Isn't it time that we, at least, try another method?
Thanks for listening.

Posted by: John Neubauer | August 16, 2007 9:01 PM

Funny that the corporate media gives our profit-driven system such good press, despite the out-of-control bureaucracy and paperwork, 60 million people with no insurance, armies of pinhead bureaucrats telling us which doctors we're allowed to see and what treatments are OK, and the many grossly overpaid insurance execs.

Our system is run by corporations who are invested in making money. This means refusing care, discriminating against the mentally ill (think about that next time you read about a mom drowning her kids or someone going postal at work), and keeping dossiers on us so they can crank up our premiums, should we dare to become sick or old.

I know, it costs TONS of tax dollars to fund universal care. Good thing our insurance-based care is free. LOL

Posted by: steve | August 16, 2007 9:40 PM

I was an overseas student in the UK for three years. During my second year, I had severe pains in my stomach and went to the A&E because it was a bank holiday and my university campus doctor was off for the day.

I waited for a total of 10.5 hours before I was seen, but not before I saw a woman near me literally pretend to faint and get carted in for treatment right away. Meanwhile, I noticed the triage nurse pushed my chart to the back as each new patient came in. Unfortunately, I was used to the Hong Kong healthcare system, where the maximum wait for the A&E is two hours, and this was before they initiated a small basic charge for incoming patients, which later warded off the non-emergency patients. I had not brought a book with me, and all I could do was sit and stare out the window as the day proceeded to change into evening.

During my wait, I was afraid to leave the waiting area for food as I was repeatedly told they might call my name any minute. After a few bits of vending machine fare, I finally couldn't stand it as the overdose of sugar from junk food made me feel sick. I dashed to the next building to buy a sandwich and ran back, worried that I might lose my place in line my name was called while I was gone.

Finally, after 10.5 hours, I burst into tears and begged to be seen by a doctor. I was finally called in and was told by the young male doctor that it's not known why women have abdominal pains sometimes. It just happens and it's a mystery, he said. I said, "I've waited 10.5 hours and that's all you can say to me -- that it's a mystery because I'm a woman? Can't you at least run a test or something?"

So they ran a urinalysis. The doctor said the results were unclear and decided to run a second one, so I waited another 45 minutes. Finally, he said I seemed fine and wrote me a prescription for two drugs.

A few days later, I went to see my campus doctor and showed her my prescription. She informed me that I had only been given half my prescribed medicine and what I had on my hands was merely codine, a run-of-the-mill painkiller. For a box of codine, I sat and waited, weak from hunger and desperate, for 10.5 hours to be seen by a doctor?

I have absolutely no faith in the NHS. It is terrible, and inhumane. If only they could learn from Canada.

Posted by: Angie | August 16, 2007 11:26 PM

Mr Wallis

I heard you speak here in Louisville back 2005 at the Justice Sunday demonstration and I have to admit, even though I'm not a Christian, I do respect you because you walk the talk!
While doing some work for "Citizens Action", a lobbying group, I had a lady relay a story to me about just such an incident while visiting the UK. She was very impressed.
Thank you for this article. America wake up we're getting robbed!

Posted by: Acebass | August 17, 2007 12:56 AM

I am an American currently living and working in London for the past year, fully immersed in the UK socialized medical system having had my first baby here within the NHS. My pregnancy hit several complications at various points but particularly at the end, so I spent the better part of a month in 2 London hospitals. I ended up with an emergency c-section, my son was in the NICU for 5 days, and we spent a total of 12 days in the hospital together.

Now, I certainly did see some of what people believe the NHS to be. Less than modern facilities with peeling paint, cracked walls, a little dingy, etc. I would point this out as truly the ONLY major difference that acts as a negative against the NHS. Yes, the staff was typically overworked and struggled to give me the 1 to 1 care that I needed at times, but that is NO different than any American hospital in our current system. I was actually counseled at many, many points and given choices by the physicicans, similar to Jim's experience in his choice of treatment. The physicians and midwives were actually patient, caring, understanding, and supportive of the questions and concerns my husband and I had about my care and my son's, to a degree I have never encountered in an American hospital. And as one commenter pointed out, no, 'fame' is not necessary to receive good, prompt treatment. Positively rubbish accusation!!!

The most significnat point I will make is about the length of my hospital stay. In NO American hospital would you ever find a mother being given the option to stay IN a hospital after being discharged in order to be close to her son in the NICU and to support the act of breastfeeding. That is indeed what I encountered, and was most helpful to both of us. Despite a cost of what was undoubtedly several hundred £'s per day, no one even balked or suggested that I needed to go home.

Now, even more amazing is that once I went home with my son, I had visits from the community midwives twice a week as well as the neonatal nurse. Even better, we have a health visitor available to us who came to see us the second week we were home. Her role is ensure children are properly cared for until they enter the public school system. This level of support exists NOWHERE in the US and is truly incomparable!!!!!

My last point is that I'm grateful to have experienced childbirth for the first time within a health care system that does not perform intervention for the sake of profit, which I firmly believe is the American obstetric model. Is it perfect? Certainly not, and there are horror stories to be told and some significant flaws. BUT, again, the same is true of the American system. At least in the UK there truly are no women and children being left behind!!!

Posted by: allison | August 17, 2007 4:55 AM

The term "socialized medicine" is always evoked as a boogey-man to conjure up images of health care rationing and outside forces controlling one's access to health care. The irony, of course, is that is exactly what we have with the current system in the U.S., except that it is FOR-PROFIT health insurance companies that are dictating the terms of the care we receive.

I recently changed jobs and as a result had to change health insurance also. Having lived in the area for nearly 6 years and working for the same employer I had developed a network of doctors that I trusted. But upon changing health insurance I found that I had to give up two of them or face huge out of pocket costs because they weren't in the new network. Luckily, my new job provides enough of a salary increase that I am able to cover the out-of-pocket expenses for one of the doctors, but the other I've had to leave and I will now have to go through the process of finding a new one. I suppose you could say that I still have choice, but it's not a choice between two goods. If I didn't have the resources, I would not be able to get the care that I need - which is the situation that a lot of lower AND middle income people face. Even now, I am just one serious injury away from serious financial hardship. And, even with health insurance now, there are times that I don't fill prescriptions and don't get needed follow-up care because of the COST.

No system is perfect, but it seems that subsidized systems do a lot better job of providing affordable, quality care to more people. I find it baffling that people think health care is a privilege, not a right - and even more baffling that so many in the U.S. put greater trust in a health system that is profit-driven than in one that is formed and overseen by public consensus. When the motivation is public good, rather than private profit, it seems to me that a much better system and outcomes will be created.

Posted by: Alison | August 17, 2007 9:05 AM

Wow i didnt realise universal heath care was so demonized in the US.

Posted by: Rob | August 17, 2007 9:39 AM

Thanks for the great story. The title caught me off-guard--good title. I too, had a very fine experience in an emergency room in Scotland. They treated me very well, and when I tried to pay them, they informed me that since I was in their country and they could deal with my situation right in the emergency room, even though I wasn't a citizen there, there was no charge to me. I've told that story over and over again, to the many people who don't want to hear of health-care reform in our country. In connection with my experience in the UK, I've often thought of the people in the United States who work here, pay taxes here, may not even be citizens of our country--but who don't have access to the same kind of care I do, simply because I am among the privileged group of folks who have insurance. No health care system is perfect, but any system that does not include all people, is simply not just.

Posted by: Sue | August 17, 2007 11:13 AM

As someone with a serious (yet stabilized) chronic medical condition, I fall into the Catch-22 of insurance plans... My condition is stable as long as I take daily medications; medications that can only be obtained with the help of insurance (out of pocket, $500 a month). But I am ineligible for any private insurance (both because of the condition, and a clause that exists in the application that if you were ever denied for coverage by a provider before, you will be denied again). My only option for insurance is employment -- not a problem, except as someone who is making the transition from undergrad student (thereby covered by my parent's insurance), I am forced into limited options now based on where I can obtain affordable health care.

Additionally, though - I've had the added perspective of traveling in the UK and living in Northern Ireland for a year. I've been to the ER in London and Belfast, and despite the crowded waiting rooms in both locations, I was amazed at the speed and quality of the service. In London the doctor I saw released me with medications and information to take back to my GP in the states; in Belfast, I even received a follow-up call two days later.
I also see the other side of the issue too, though. Anything larger or more serious (including chronic conditions) do not receive nearly the same level of care as in the U.S. After a particularly worrisome episode of break-out seizures, the doctor I was seeing in Belfast referred me to a neurologist. I received my appointment for the neurologist via mail: exactly one year later.
I won't compound the issue through personal stories on both sides of the coin: though I think what it comes down to is there is good and bad in the socialized system the UK holds, just as there is in our system as well. In my opinion, the good far outweighs the bad in any universal health care system (if I had chosen to, I could have appealed to see the neurologist sooner, and there is a private system available in the UK in which I could have seen a doctor within a few weeks, obviously for a price). We can debate for ever long waits vs. no waits, premiums vs. taxes, yet at the end of the day I think we'd all rather be a single mother with a sick child in Canada than a single mother with a sick child in the US. Any form of health care is better than no health care at all.

Posted by: Emily | August 17, 2007 12:12 PM

Wow...amazing! Everyone knows government can't do anything right.

Health care in the US is great if you are one of the few who can actually afford it. I just returned from two and one half months in the UK, and not one person I spoke with there would trade their system for ours - Not ONE!

Although there may be the impression of an obesity epidemic in the UK, they appear absolutely immaciated compared with what I've observed since retuning to the US. Just look around the local mall or airport, and count the number of overweight people.

Preventative health care in England is not just an ideal, it is practiced by the population, and encouraged by the government. The citizenry see this not as a necessary evil to avoid the NHS, but as an obligation of citizenship, and a means to maintaining a high quality of life.

Also, the doctors I spoke with in the UK are seemingly practicing medicine because they want to serve people first. What a concept!? Until the US comes to grips with the rights of all citizens to adequate health care, those who are uninsured will continue to drive up the cost to everyone by regularly dining on fast food, and clogging the emergency rooms of this country.

Posted by: Tim | August 17, 2007 2:34 PM

My Encounter with [Insert Scary Music] ... Socialized Medicine!
I hope that people read the whole article. I almost did not, because I was going to write about how GOOD medical care was in Europe. When I was on a Island off of Greece, there was a clinic whith an English sign that read "Health Care", so I went in and cont aced a Doctor and said, "should it not read "Medical" care? He thought about it for a moment and said "yes, you are right". You see, the "news media" wants you afraid of the word "Social" as well as calling medical care as "health" care! Woody www.hope05.org

Posted by: Woody Alspaugh | August 17, 2007 5:24 PM

We had a similar experience with "socialized medicine" but in Venezuala a year ago. My 20 year old daughter, my wife and I flew to Merida in the Andian portion of Venezuala, a city 10,000 feet above sea level. My daughter had trouble sleeping the first night which in hindsight we learned was one symptom of altitude sickness. The next day we were in a van heading up to a mountain peak accessable by car at 14,000 feet. About half way there in as we entered a small town, my daughter complained about not feeling well and fainted. The driver promptly drove us to a government medical clinic where we saw a young doctor who spoke servicable English within a few minutes. He lay her down in a clinic bed and gave her oxygen to breathe. After 20 minutes she was recovered. He recommended we go down the mountain back to Merida. We asked how much we owed. Nothing. We asked him where he had received his medical training. He responded Cuba, a country we knew had a reputation for excellent medical training. We were very pleased and thankful.

Posted by: Richard Hall | August 17, 2007 6:07 PM

malpractice costs: my policy doubled in cost from one month to the next not because I ever had a claim but because of the stock market contraction that year. I agree rising awards is an excuse not the 100% cause of rising costs.

NHS: there may be lines for some services, but everyone gets to be in the line unlike US where some never get that chance.

As a US trained doc (more mil than US civ time) with 3 years work for NHS and 4 years living UK, 3 in Germany I really regret that my country, the best in the world in so many other ways, has such a sorry shameful healthcare system. Just saw Sicko and am pretty much in agreement with Moore's opinions (except that we should BECOME France, or that Hillary is a hot chick).

Posted by: Jenn | August 17, 2007 9:59 PM

Have you sent this to Michael Moore? Someone should.

Posted by: Julie Gengo | August 18, 2007 1:24 AM

Most other advanced countries are so far ahead of us. Fifteen years ago I took a bad spill on my bicycle in Scotland and ended up at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital. I received the same quick, gracious treatment you did. This past April I fell and cut my face (I seem to fall only in the UK) and went to the hospital in Berwick-on-Tweed. This time no doctor was on call, but a nurse looked at the cut, cleaned it up, and assured me I had not had a heart attack that caused me to pass out.
My husband just had back surgery in Albuquerque. The hospital expenses--only one night so he was really an outpatient--were more than $20,000. We have not seen the doctor's bill.
So long as we look at health care as a profit center and spend more than 30% on paperwork we will not have the medical care we need.
We are retired after being self-employed. New Mexico has a state pool that my husband is in because of his history and the number of prescriptions he needs. Our 2 separate insurance policies cost almost $1000 a month. Plus deductibles and co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses. We are blessed and have been able to manage this, but it has not always been easy.
When I think about the billions of dollars that have been squandered in Iraq, I cry for America.

Posted by: Sandra Rudy | August 18, 2007 12:18 PM

"The American model is fine if you can pay. Therein lies the problem - not for the customers but for the non-customers. A state-funded universal health care system free at the point of delivery ensures that there are no non-customers."

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The problem (and it might be in the UK as well) is that elderly citizens groups have ENORMOUS sway over our politicians. Any system that trades wait times (and, realistically, less coverage) for the elderly is politically untenable. It simply won't happen, even if it should.

Richard,

I'm sorry. Your anecdote is unpersuasive. I could have told you that your daughter needed oxygen. To the extent that supporters of socialized medicine want to advance their agenda, they would do well not to play the Cuba card.

C bring up a good point about physiotherapy. How do other countries deal with rehabilitation, psychology, chiropractic care, etc... I would be curious to know how this works.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 18, 2007 1:00 PM

Given the broad passion on this issue I am deeply disheartened at the incapacity of Federal elected officials to engage the full-scope of the matter. Why argue the merits of different systems without officials committed and able to debate, design and administer change?

One secondary issue (maybe primary), in my thinking, is the idolatrous value we have placed on healthcare services and technologies. Frankly, we probably cannot trust the government to administer our 'god' appropriately--meaning to administer all possible care, to all persons, at all times, in all places, without limit, to eliminate all disease, suffering, pain and death; to deliver prescription silver bullets overnight to conquer each new disease; to have doctors that think and perform as gods. We fear government will either restrict our god or become our god. If we would value healthcare services more on the level of the delivery of clean water and sanitary sewage disposal (likely the greatest public contribution to universal health)--then we could likely trust the government to deliver some form of universal access.

A profoundly massive and complex system (however dysfunctional or functional)is not simply or perfectly changed. It is not pretty now and is not going to be pretty. The dysfunction extends far beyond issues of govenment involvement and universality. Every vested interest has exerted their maximum power to protect their interests (often legitimate) and often cannot see their own survival if they yield to any change.

I wonder if the best thing Washington DC can do is support reform/change at State levels--allowing them to work out new models that can replicate or inform national change in future. Other nations can serve to inform what we do; but none has started with the system we have and moved to something else. No other nation has a system that functions on the scale and complexity as ours. That is not to say we shouldn't change. In fact a smaller system might produce better outcomes. But it is to say this is a 'one-of-a-kind' system that produces great good for global healthcare--and has great dysfunctions.

What an opportunity for Christian leadership expressing the Shalom of God in our time.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | August 18, 2007 2:28 PM

Free?

It may not have cost you anything, but it was not free. The British people paid for it with their tax dollars.

Posted by: Wayne McDaniel | August 18, 2007 3:39 PM

Maybe it was because you mentioned you were visiting the vicar. You seemed to have been seen before anyone else that was already there. We lived in Canada for 2 years. We never received that good care, and what we did receive was very poor quality

And when you needed specialty care, you had to pay for it out of your own pocket. But, at least, even they treated you rudely

I'm glad I'm an American and back in the USA!

Posted by: Leanne Njus | August 18, 2007 8:24 PM

Brent,

who do you work for? You seem to have a lot of time to rebut any positive story about socialized medicine. And you use such intelligent discourse; yada yadda yadda. I imagine you are paid well for the service you provide to the insurance companies.

I have high option Blue Cross and I have to pay $12,ooo. a year plus co-pays, and believe me I wait long periods for treatment and often go home feeling
frustrated. I'm a bottom line kind of guy. I don't care how much I pay in taxes if I have security in my life. If I know my roads are safe, health care is
reliable and free, that education is available to everyone at no cost, then I don't need as much money in my pocket. Sure I'll have less net income, but I'll be able to save for my retirement which it very hard under our unfair system.

But you are paid well for you observations and you do a fine job defending your corporate masters.

keep up the good work.

Posted by: john | August 19, 2007 10:59 AM

I really don't want to be in the same barrel as Rush Limbaugh and I do support some kind of goverment provided health care system in the U.S, since it probably would be the only assurance, that everyone would be able to receive the care they need, without having to worry about bancrupcy. However, I hope the organizers of a U.S. system realize, that there is much wrong with other countries systems, which would hopefully be fixed BEFORE a similar system was put into place. I just have heard so much of, "we need a sysytem like Canada has." We need to look at the problems that Canada has and figure a way to correct them, BEFORE we do anything. I was born in Canada and have lived in the U.S. for 33 years. All of my family lives in Canada, so I know how it all works there and here. I have seen and heard horror stories from both sides of the border. No system will be perfect, but lets correct the obvious, before we jump into something we may come to regret later. Just for the record, the writer of the article seemed to be really amazed that people were smiling. Unfortunately, I have been a regular customer for many hospitals and doctors in the U.S. and my experience has been that most of the workers I have encountered are both pleasant and efficient at their jobs.

Posted by: Carman Greene | August 19, 2007 3:37 PM

Jim, My wife and I went to see Michael Moore's film "Sicko" the other day - a significant moment. Then I reread your article. i rush to reply.
There is a moment in his film when it occured to me that World Vision should be invited to open emergency health centres in the USA. There in your article was reference to your attending a World Vision Conference in Singapore.
So, some comments.
1. "socialist medicine" in its best practice could run close to what a Christian caring society should be doing. I suspect that in Europe and here in Australia the Church played a key role in providing medical care. In Brisbane, Australia six of its hospitals - now five - began as Church based operations and so even though most of the financing now comes from government that caring tradition remains.
2. So much of American life seems to be driven by fear - of them who must be excluded. - in this case the "Socialists" Given the proud boast that the US is a christian country. Have preachers not heard that Perfect love castes out fear and that Christians in the USA should be living out that free from fear reality.... experience.
3. I am glad that you were able to move beyond fear and receive the care your foot required

Posted by: John Swanston | August 20, 2007 1:33 AM

I really don't understand the fears people have on this subject, or how every form of government program recieves the monaker of "socialism" (fire, police, army etc. excluded)!

I'm an American, and lived in Canada for five years in the early 70's and had two children while there. All of us survived the medical system there, and actually received equal or better health care than we receiv here, and it didn't put us in a financial hole. In the US we pay about $12,000 a year in non-insured health expenses, plus my employer pays over $10,000 for insurance premiums.

Before you think that the Canadian system disintegrated since my departure in 1976, I raised two Canadian-born children in the US. They moved back in 1990 to attend college and fell in love with two wonderful Canadian women, and each has two Canadian children. Their care is at least as good as it was in my days there, and while they do pay higher income taxes than we do, their medical expenses are not a burden to them! Likewise, the only wait any of them have experienced for medical attention was a six week wait to have a small cyst removed from my son's wrist; an elective surgery. When I had the same surgery in the US, I had to wait to be scheduled for a few weeks out. In fact, for my knee surgeries in the US I have always waited a month or more!

When I tell my stories of Canadian medicine to some of my conservative friends, the room goes silent. They usually have begun the discussion assuming that I will be able to corroborate their opinion of "socialized" medicine which they picked up in a sound bte somewhere. I can't!

Since when did taking care of each other become socialism? Are we only guaranteed the "pursuit" of happiness, and not actually finding it?

Posted by: Jim McRae | August 20, 2007 11:09 AM

Mr Wallis made one major mis-statement in his article. He said that his treatment was free. It wasn't. Nothing is free, including his medical visit. If it were truly free, then I would be all for socialized medicine. But is isn't. Jim is wrong. Someone has to pay for it.

Posted by: KSM | August 21, 2007 9:42 PM

Hi, I am an American, Evangelical Christian living in London, England. I have been to the NHS dentist, optometrists and hospitals. They are great!

Jesus is not a Republican and not a Democrat. But he is alive, he did rise from the grave. Oh yes he did!

So for all those who are scare mongers, socialized medical care is great. After 10 years living in London, the NHS is very good!

Now compare this to the US where a person who cannot afford dental care or afford to go to the optometrists, blind and toothless. Beggars and homeless, usually men.

All you compassionate holy roller voting people. If Jesus came today you would most likely not recognize him. He would be living with and feeding and caring for the poor and needy while you all would be raising money for your own political candidate.

I am a patriot, not some left wing democrat nazi who wants to hand America over to Osama ben Moore-Clinton revival or cutting taxes brigade. The diabolic duo!

Our forefathers were the Great Puritan Evangelicals,from England, Scotland and Western Europe proper who forged the roots of the nation on King Jesus the Son of God. The goal of America is to build a City on a Hill where a light shines out to the world declaring Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Light, not a greedy group of hypocrites voting for lower taxes, open/closed boarders, pro life/baby-killers.

I love my country and its people.

Visit me on MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/jesusfreaks4london

Posted by: Steve | August 23, 2007 8:46 AM

Well as an American that lived in the UK for over 15 years I was pleased when my wife forwarded me this article. While my stay in the UK is now in the past, during that time I never had a problem or difficulty with the NHS (the health system over there) although I would occasionally hear a horror story.

After reading some of the posts here I would have to say that there are unfortunately many that are either misinformed or simply ignorant of what goes on in our world. I am not saying that socialized medicine is the way to go nor am I saying that the US system is the best option. However, each country does need to assess what is best for ALL citizens and then take steps in that direction. I make the distinction of all citizens because there is a growing number of people in the US that are without insurance and so find it difficult to obtain care.

Another point I would like to make is regarding the taxes in the UK. While petrol is extremely expensive (about 4-5 times the US) the base tax rate is only 24% and when looking at the various withholding taxes in the US, the amount taken out of a paycheck in both countries is closer than is popularly believed.

Posted by: Dave | August 25, 2007 2:23 PM

One additional comment about universal health care. It really does get to the bottom of what it means to be a Christian in this society. Do we continue to adhere to the rule of "get as mcuh as I can for myself and then feel good about giving to a few charities" or do we as a society decide to pull together to give in the form of higher taxes to help all in society have a better life? I think if you read the Gospels closely especially the "Sojouner's Creed" Mathew 25:31-46, the answer will be obvious

Mark Brown

Posted by: Mark Brown | August 27, 2007 10:37 AM

Everybody in these discussions regularly misses the central point, which is that if either the system in the UK or Canada spent per capita the same as is spent in the US per capita (and neither come even close), those systems would function much even more effectively than they do. Dr. Marcia Angell of the Harvard School of Medicine makes the case compelling: if in the US we would erase the gross inefficiency of the present system -- multiple "middle people" handling every medical care transaction -- resulting in fat medical care profifts, then, for perhaps 1/3 LESS than what we spend now we could provide universal medical care. The sticking point is the fat profits and those who pocket them and use them to buy Congress. Kyrie eleison.

Posted by: Stuart | August 27, 2007 9:18 PM

When I was in Paros, an Island off of the coast of Greece, there was a medical center. In English, a sign read, "Health Clinic". I went inside and spoke to a doctor. I said, "should it not say "Medical"? After a moment, replied, "yes"!
Just like the "energy" crisis, big money changes the meaning of words to confuse us.

Posted by: Woody Alspaugh | December 8, 2007 6:08 PM