Anyone following me on twitter might be aware that I have become a touch enraged about the US Healthcare debate recently, especially the diversion tactic where my countries healthcare system has been held up as a nightmare scenario of Comrade Obama's Master Plan to Destroy America's Health^tm.

In fact, I suspect we would have been happy to ignore this were it not for the little "Public Healthcare Will Kill Your Granny" spiel.

I'm sorry, I'll just adjust my soapbox a little here.

The problem with this is our health care system is actually generally pretty good (could be improved, could be better funded, lots of things could happen that would make it better, but the fundamental principle is serving us well).

As is the system in Canada. And France. And Germany. And Australia. And Israel. I mean, I could go on.

Each one of those countries appears to have a functioning, responsible, well-run health care system. And they're either wholly or partially publicly funded. Which apparently is some sort of contradiction in terms to some people.

Here's a list to compare. via the Wiki. Will do a better job of describing the pros and cons.

Any combination of those solutions for bridging the gap between people with access to healthcare and people without is viable.

There are social, economic and ethical reasons why healthcare reform needs to happen. You owe it to yourselves, to your neighbour and people who will probably never meet.

But that's really not what's at stake here.

People are out there wilfully lying to get you on board. Mostly because I figure they think you're morons.

For example, the UK Government doesn't runs the NHS any more than it is involved in the day-to-day running of public schools, hospitals, police forces or the fire brigade.

Why would an American Universal System suddenly place have a dollar value on your life and will withhold care if you're too expensive to treat when, US Insurance Companies do this already? If anything, that sort of practice needs to be examined and regulated.

Stephen Hawking is not American and has not been killed by the NHS no matter how much they treat him for life-threatening conditions.

The NHS being a "terrorist breeding ground"? I know it's Fox News, but that's a pretty determined attempt at reconfiguring reality.

Finally some figures to round this off from the World Health Organisation. They're easy enough to find.

UK
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,784
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.4

USA
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3

What does the US currently get for that extra outlay per capita at present?
Lower average life expectancy, lower average healthy life expectancy, higher average infant mortality rate. Surely something is wrong? Surely that needs fixing?

Our way is by no means the best way, and it probably wouldn't work in the US for a variety of reasons, but ideology (and probably a fair amount of cash) is overriding serious, reasoned debate about public funded healthcare options and what should be made available.

And I'm done.

Gracious Sponsors

News