I understand that petrification. From both sides of the geopolitical coin.
Many years ago, when touring the UK, I managed to injure myself. It was a stupid occurrence, it was my fault, and there I was in a foreign country, convinced I was in deep trouble. A significant laceration, possible infection, maybe even tetanus.
My wife (at the time) convinced me we should seek medical help. Mind you, this was in an era when you took traveler's checks to fund your time overseas. I was sure that we'd be in big trouble if we just showed up at a clinic and wanted care. How much would it cost? Could we afford it? How would it impact the rest of our vacation? Should I just grim and bear it and hope it would all turn out okay?
After some semi-comical tracking down of a medical facility in that pre-Google Maps era, we found ourselves at a clinic on a Saturday evening.
And they took me in, and they did the proper stitching and dressing and treatment. And when I asked how much it cost, it was, hey presto, nothing.
Health care was obviously important in the UK. For anyone. Even for a furriner like me.
I do not discount or discard the issues that the British NHS has, for a variety of reasons. But from that date I found myself with a profound appreciation for the idea that people who are hurt, injured, ill, deserve to get some sort of treatment for same, and that somehow we, as civilized individuals, should figure out how to make that happen.
In later years, I encountered just what sort of health care system we in the states had, and how the whims or margin targets of a for-profit insurance company could dictate exactly what treatment one could receive, regardless of what one actually needed. And beyond the lie it put to the whole "death panels" question (they already exist behind corporate doors, my friend), it made clear to me the very distinct difference between having "the best medical system in the world" and having the financial resources to actually partake of it.
"That you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."
Three days in a US hospital convinced me that America needs ObamaCare
Current affairs, world politics, the arts and more from Britain’s award-winning magazine
We have "depraved indifference" laws that can send you to prison if you let die a person you could have helped. Why are insurance companies exempt from these laws? How can we allow their "pay or die" attitude to continue?
So lucky that I live in New Zealand with a similar public health system to the UK.
+Scott Randel Because "corporations are people, my friend" only when it doesn't inconvenience them.
I’m a little tired of the “death panels” thing…a lot tired, actually. Recently I had a chemical stress test. My PCP wanted me to have it. My cardiologist wanted me to have it. So, could I just make the appointment and get the test? Not until some suits from the company where I have my Medicare Advantage plan said it was OK.
Yup. We have Death Panels already. They just work at private insurance companies.
Although it's not directly related, it's interesting to observe some of those same foreigners go to a Costco and see how many ibuprofen and acetaminophen tablets you can buy, over the counter, without a prescription.
<opens the can of worms>
I just don't see how the author's one time experience receiving a relatively simple medical treatment for no cost to himself in a foreign country convinced him that the way to achieve the worthy (albeit Utopian) goal of free health care for all would be to have something as inefficient & corrupt as the federal government implement a bill that even citizens of above average intelligence find difficult to comprehend.
<runs and hides>
Seriously, though, he's right that we, as citizens, need to do something for those who are hurt, injured, or ill. But I don't believe it's going to happen coming from the top down. That type of compassion has to come from the bottom up.
I'd love for it to come from the bottom up. But I don't see any sign of that happening and, frankly, am not interested in seeing the suffering that will occur in the interim until that happens.
My experience, mirrored by the person in the article, and echoed by a number of folks I've talked to in the US and abroad is that if someone is sick, injured, etc., what they need to focus on is getting better, not on how they will afford the treatment to get better, or how it will destroy them financially if they somehow do.
While I try not to be too naive, I also don't see the federal government as being profoundly inefficient and corrupt. There is always room for improvement, and inefficiencies and even corruption occur. But my flip side to your question is why we would allow companies that are interested specifically in profiting from maximizing premiums and deductables and minimizing actual treatment to be the main middle-men between people and medical care?
I'm not thrilled with the ACA. It has more moving parts than it should, and it's the result of some major political compromising. That said, it's already having positive effects and, when fully implemented, will be a heck of a lot better than the status quo ante.