|
|
| |
| Fri, Dec. 5, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Health care: Lessons from Great Britain Wednesday, Feb 22, 2006 By David Sanders For years, the American left has clamored for nationalized health care. Liberal Democrats have scaled back their grandiose plans and now advocate a so-called single-payer national health insurance program. Understand that the goal for a nationalized health system remains intact ? look back to the 2004 Democratic presidential debates. With more corporations (and their large institutional shareholders) coming to terms with their long-term health-care obligations, there will be new voices joining the chorus of those calling for some kind of national solution to rising health-care costs - all in the name of increasing profits. A federally financed health-care system ultimately would result in a system controlled by the federal government in which Americans' access to care and quality of care would assuredly suffer. Don't believe it? Consider the following three exchanges between members of Parliament and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the subject of the National Health Service (the entity that operates Britain's government-run health-care system) during C-SPAN's "Prime Minster's Questions" last week. Geraldine Smith (Labour): "More than 100 cancer patients now receive the licensed drug Tarceva, but Morecambe Bay NHS Primary Care Trust refuses to prescribe it to a cancer sufferer in my constituency, Paul Bould, despite the fact that his consultant feels that it could help to prolong his life. Who does the Prime Minister believe should make these life-or-death decisions? Should it be Paul Bould's doctor or an NHS manager?" Prime Minister Tony Blair: "Of course my honorable friend is right to suggest that it should be clinicians who take those decisions. I will look into the specific issue that she has raised, which I was obviously not aware of, and I will write to her about it. Of course, we want to give everyone the drugs that can help to prolong their lives. That is why there has been a massive expansion in the number of people receiving them under this government, for both cancer and cardiac care, but it is important to ensure that this is done in the most effective way." Anthony Steen (Tory): If the prime minister had come to St. Kilda's, he would have seen the importance of respite care for the 750,000 people who suffer from Alzheimer's and their carers (British for caregivers). Is he aware that mental health trusts are closing down purpose-built respite and residential care facilities and forcing carers to find the money to pay for care that was formerly provided free under the NHS? Will such a facility no longer be provided by the NHS, and will such mental health patients have to find the money to be looked after by carers? Blair: "First of all, I would join him in paying tribute to all those carers who work in nursing homes and look after people suffering from Alzheimer's and related diseases. Ultimately, however, as he will know, it must be for local services to decide how to configure such services within their budget. I understand that a proposal has been put forward for change in the area, and I know that that will be fiercely fought over, as such matters are. I hope that he will understand that, in this instance, it could not be right for central government to intervene in how local services are provided." Daniel Kawczynski (Tory): "The Prime Minister has been to Shrewsbury a number of times, so he will know that Royal Shrewsbury hospital is more than ?29 million ($52 million) in debt. Will he give me a public assurance that debt will not affect services and that there will be no cuts in staff and services at my beloved Royal Shrewsbury hospital?" Blair: "Despite my connection with Shrewsbury, of which I know the honorable gentleman is aware, I believe that it is important for all hospitals to live within their budgetary limits. He will know that health care services in Shrewsbury and elsewhere have received a massive budget increase for the years to come. They will receive further such rises, but, in the end, they must live within their means. As we are making very generous provision for hospitals, I do not think it unreasonable of us to say that there must be proper financial accountability." For those who want a national solution for American health care: Be careful what you wish for. It's no solution. ------ David Sanders writes twice weekly for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is DavidJSanders@aol.com. |
