The Far-Right Conspiracy against the NHS

[Terry Mauro]

So this is your way of admitting you want no part of Tony Chaitkin? I guess you're not interested in learning more about his investigation into the euthanasia policy being pushed the British Royal Family?

You just folded your cards Mr. Educator.

Listen nut case - we'll have the 'Reverend Moon' (Larouche) himself - it's open house.

It's a genuine shame that you have taken up with such a disturbingly right wing cult but so long as you are communicating with sane people you have at least half a chance - (now that's what I call a commitment to education). From now on I insist that you refer to me as 'Mr Educator.'

How many ways can you think of to back out? Let's have a real debate on this issue, featuring Tony Chaitkin and his work on "euthanasia" and the "Royal Family". Lets do it just the way you have done it in the past with various authors of relatively meaningless and flawed conspiracy books.

In the meantime allow me to post a link to Tony Chaitkins interview.

http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv

Insofar as Euthanasia is a topic of debate within the topic of Health Reform, exactly how does the issue resemble or otherwise embrace nazi policies of eugenics or euthanasia?

As far as I can tell, the proponents, not nessecarily joined at the hip with the NHS, argue to legalize doctor assisted suicide, rather than criminalizing the actual act of assisted suicide for someone who, for example, may be terminally ill and in agonizing pain. If this topic has been connected with public health care in the US it is an oblique and nearly impertinent connection.

Is the connection due to waiting lists for complex procedures or transplants which have troubled the British health programs? If so, I would say that there will be no public health system without logisitical problems, especially at the outset.

I personally have not decided whether the NHS as had been proposed should have been adopted in the US, however, the un-insured within the US most definitely need some kind of health care protection. The most important point is that there are millions of US children with inadequate healthcare, today. This is not what this country is about.

To propogandize/depict Obama as Hitler to further what can only be a political squabble over socializing health care is without question gutter politics. A proper approach wouold be to state the issue in clear language and the argument (or dialectic) in equally clear language. If the counter point has any merit, it should stand on its own merits. I vote for the Socratic not the propogandist method.

What a few relatives of the British Monarchy circa 1939 has to add to these issues is a waste of a reader's time.

For someone to have watched the video (and I can only assume that you watched because you linked my post) and then write what you just wrote is totally bizzare.

Nobody including the NHS is propping up an argument for "assisted suicide". What they're proposing and carrying out in Britain is "involuntary suicide"! There is nothing in the Tony Chaitkin interview that even suggests that the fight is against "assisted suicide" for terminally ill patients.

Furthermore Royal Family courtier Simon Stevens, who is at the lead of this "euthanasia program in Britain is spending his waking hours working on cutting "medicaid" and "medicare". He is the key person advising President Obama on this Hitler euthanasia policy.

There is no plan to "socialize" healthcare. The plan is to cut, cut, cut government healthcare programs and allow a private board to ration healthcare, just as the Nazi's did with their T4 program.

You vote for the Socratic method? That may sound nice but from what I can tell you're clueless.

Let's get this straight. There is no plan to provide healthcare for those currently without. The Obama plan(which is the British plan) is to ration healthcare and eliminate those people who are elderly, frail, and sick. Those lives deemed unworthy to be lived.

[Peter McKenna]

So this is your way of admitting you want no part of Tony Chaitkin? I guess you're not interested in learning more about his investigation into the euthanasia policy being pushed the British Royal Family?

You just folded your cards Mr. Educator.

Listen nut case - we'll have the 'Reverend Moon' (Larouche) himself - it's open house.

It's a genuine shame that you have taken up with such a disturbingly right wing cult but so long as you are communicating with sane people you have at least half a chance - (now that's what I call a commitment to education). From now on I insist that you refer to me as 'Mr Educator.'

How many ways can you think of to back out? Let's have a real debate on this issue, featuring Tony Chaitkin and his work on "euthanasia" and the "Royal Family". Lets do it just the way you have done it in the past with various authors of relatively meaningless and flawed conspiracy books.

In the meantime allow me to post a link to Tony Chaitkins interview.

http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv

Insofar as Euthanasia is a topic of debate within the topic of Health Reform, exactly how does the issue resemble or otherwise embrace nazi policies of eugenics or euthanasia?

As far as I can tell, the proponents, not nessecarily joined at the hip with the NHS, argue to legalize doctor assisted suicide, rather than criminalizing the actual act of assisted suicide for someone who, for example, may be terminally ill and in agonizing pain. If this topic has been connected with public health care in the US it is an oblique and nearly impertinent connection.

Is the connection due to waiting lists for complex procedures or transplants which have troubled the British health programs? If so, I would say that there will be no public health system without logisitical problems, especially at the outset.

I personally have not decided whether the NHS as had been proposed should have been adopted in the US, however, the un-insured within the US most definitely need some kind of health care protection. The most important point is that there are millions of US children with inadequate healthcare, today. This is not what this country is about.

To propogandize/depict Obama as Hitler to further what can only be a political squabble over socializing health care is without question gutter politics. A proper approach wouold be to state the issue in clear language and the argument (or dialectic) in equally clear language. If the counter point has any merit, it should stand on its own merits. I vote for the Socratic not the propogandist method.

What a few relatives of the British Monarchy circa 1939 has to add to these issues is a waste of a reader's time.

For someone to have watched the video (and I can only assume that you watched because you linked my post) and then write what you just wrote is totally bizzare.

Nobody including the NHS is propping up an argument for "assisted suicide". What they're proposing and carrying out in Britain is "involuntary suicide"! There is nothing in the Tony Chaitkin interview that even suggests that the fight is against "assisted suicide" for terminally ill patients.

Furthermore Royal Family courtier Simon Stevens, who is at the lead of this "euthanasia program in Britain is spending his waking hours working on cutting "medicaid" and "medicare". He is the key person advising President Obama on this Hitler euthanasia policy.

There is no plan to "socialize" healthcare. The plan is to cut, cut, cut government healthcare programs and allow a private board to ration healthcare, just as the Nazi's did with their T4 program.

You vote for the Socratic method? That may sound nice but from what I can tell you're clueless.

Let's get this straight. There is no plan to provide healthcare for those currently without. The Obama plan(which is the British plan) is to ration healthcare and eliminate those people who are elderly, frail, and sick. Those lives deemed unworthy to be lived.

No Terry,

I am merely reading the descriptions both from the proponents and the media, as well as the LaRouche word spinners to describe what seems to be the debate you refer to. The video you referenced does not bear resemblence to any of the actual facts of the debate and if you'd notice I used the past tense when describing the US proposals, since I do realize it has been defeated.

As far as accusations of Britsh involuntary euthanasia, first there are some rather bizarre allegations, and second I see no evidence that these accusations had merit with respect to the US NHS proposed bill.

My dear it seems that in actuality you are clueless, as you have not provided any tangible facts supporting the mudslinging effort that appears to be the modus operandi of the Larouche machine.

That is the basis for my plea for a socratic approach to your information and debate. Please present some actual facts so that I (and others) may weigh the pros and cons of the facts in entertaining a decision making process.

Thanks in advance

Pete McKenna

[Terry Mauro]

So this is your way of admitting you want no part of Tony Chaitkin? I guess you're not interested in learning more about his investigation into the euthanasia policy being pushed the British Royal Family?

You just folded your cards Mr. Educator.

Listen nut case - we'll have the 'Reverend Moon' (Larouche) himself - it's open house.

It's a genuine shame that you have taken up with such a disturbingly right wing cult but so long as you are communicating with sane people you have at least half a chance - (now that's what I call a commitment to education). From now on I insist that you refer to me as 'Mr Educator.'

How many ways can you think of to back out? Let's have a real debate on this issue, featuring Tony Chaitkin and his work on "euthanasia" and the "Royal Family". Lets do it just the way you have done it in the past with various authors of relatively meaningless and flawed conspiracy books.

In the meantime allow me to post a link to Tony Chaitkins interview.

http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv

Insofar as Euthanasia is a topic of debate within the topic of Health Reform, exactly how does the issue resemble or otherwise embrace nazi policies of eugenics or euthanasia?

As far as I can tell, the proponents, not nessecarily joined at the hip with the NHS, argue to legalize doctor assisted suicide, rather than criminalizing the actual act of assisted suicide for someone who, for example, may be terminally ill and in agonizing pain. If this topic has been connected with public health care in the US it is an oblique and nearly impertinent connection.

Is the connection due to waiting lists for complex procedures or transplants which have troubled the British health programs? If so, I would say that there will be no public health system without logisitical problems, especially at the outset.

I personally have not decided whether the NHS as had been proposed should have been adopted in the US, however, the un-insured within the US most definitely need some kind of health care protection. The most important point is that there are millions of US children with inadequate healthcare, today. This is not what this country is about.

To propogandize/depict Obama as Hitler to further what can only be a political squabble over socializing health care is without question gutter politics. A proper approach wouold be to state the issue in clear language and the argument (or dialectic) in equally clear language. If the counter point has any merit, it should stand on its own merits. I vote for the Socratic not the propogandist method.

What a few relatives of the British Monarchy circa 1939 has to add to these issues is a waste of a reader's time.

For someone to have watched the video (and I can only assume that you watched because you linked my post) and then write what you just wrote is totally bizzare.

Nobody including the NHS is propping up an argument for "assisted suicide". What they're proposing and carrying out in Britain is "involuntary suicide"! There is nothing in the Tony Chaitkin interview that even suggests that the fight is against "assisted suicide" for terminally ill patients.

Furthermore Royal Family courtier Simon Stevens, who is at the lead of this "euthanasia program in Britain is spending his waking hours working on cutting "medicaid" and "medicare". He is the key person advising President Obama on this Hitler euthanasia policy.

There is no plan to "socialize" healthcare. The plan is to cut, cut, cut government healthcare programs and allow a private board to ration healthcare, just as the Nazi's did with their T4 program.

You vote for the Socratic method? That may sound nice but from what I can tell you're clueless.

Let's get this straight. There is no plan to provide healthcare for those currently without. The Obama plan(which is the British plan) is to ration healthcare and eliminate those people who are elderly, frail, and sick. Those lives deemed unworthy to be lived.

No Terry,

I am merely reading the descriptions both from the proponents and the media, as well as the LaRouche word spinners to describe what seems to be the debate you refer to. The video you referenced does not bear resemblence to any of the actual facts of the debate and if you'd notice I used the past tense when describing the US proposals, since I do realize it has been defeated.

As far as accusations of Britsh involuntary euthanasia, first there are some rather bizarre allegations, and second I see no evidence that these accusations had merit with respect to the US NHS proposed bill.

My dear it seems that in actuality you are clueless, as you have not provided any tangible facts supporting the mudslinging effort that appears to be the modus operandi of the Larouche machine.

That is the basis for my plea for a socratic approach to your information and debate. Please present some actual facts so that I (and others) may weigh the pros and cons of the facts in entertaining a decision making process.

Thanks in advance

Pete McKenna

I still don't understand why people have such a struggle telling the truth. You write that you have seen "no evidence" that these accusations of euthanasia have any merit. Well despite your whining there is nothing but evidence, including the patients killed by this deep sedation Liverpool Care Pathway.

Dr. Clive Seale of the prestigious Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry,

issued a study where he claimed this process was responsible for 1 out of every 6 deaths in England. This is a very public debate in Great Britain.

And here's some additional "invisible" information for you to pass over. Yup, there is nothing that you've seen that would lead you to believe this is anything but the powerful LaRouche machine spinning tales.

http://www.gaeldom.com/bulletin/2009/September20/index.htm

Good job Peter, you can count yourself among the brain dead.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Terry Mauro

[Terry Mauro]

Over the coming week, under massive White House pressure, the

Congress is going to make every filthy deal they can to pass

Obama's Nazi health plan. Under the mass strike conditions in the

United States, there is {no possibility} of passing the

Tiergarten-4 modelled euthanasia through Congress in the open.

So, the White House plan, according to informed Washington

accounts, is to pass ``passable'' separate bills in the House and

the Senate, and then in conference committee, {behind closed

doors}, put in all the most hated austerity measures including

massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the comparative

effectiveness elimination of health facilities, and the British

NICE/Hitler T-4 inspired Independent Medical Advisory Commission.

Under the conference committee procedures used in recent years,

it is entirely possible to compose a completely new bill,

regardless of what was -- or wasn't -- passed in the open House

and Senate debates!

[Guest]

This made me smile

I guess a few here know how he feels?

[William Kelly]

International Socialist Review, Spring 1961

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newsp...o02/curtis.html

Carol Curtis

Socialized Medicine in Great Britain

From International Socialist Review, Vol.22 No.2, Spring 1961, pp.57-61.

Transcription & mark-up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.

FEW domestic issues seem to arouse so much impassioned controversy in America as the question of socialized medicine. When the Forand bill, providing only limited health care for older people under the social security system, was introduced in the last Congress, one newspaper screamed in large print, “This isn’t creeping socialism – it’s galloping socialism!”

The problem of medical costs for people over 65 in the United States is a severe and often tragic one. According to the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 77% of the people in this age bracket have chronic ailments while 48% have family incomes of less than $2,000 a year, and only one-quarter are covered by insurance. Still, this modest, inadequate bill, strongly backed by the AFL-CIO, was defeated.

The bill was fought by the US Chamber of Commerce. It urged employers to provide paid health insurance coverage for all retired workers and made no bones about the fact that its move was aimed at heading off a government health plan under the social security system. “Successful private plans will provide the Chamber with the evidence it needs to combat the compulsory approach,” it said.

The strength of the American Medical Association, considered the most powerful medical organization in the world, was pitted against the Forand bill. The AMA asked its members to “fight with all our resources any effort to add medical care to the retirement benefits provided by the social security system.”

The resources of the AMA are enormous. In 1950 alone, this organization waged a million-dollar advertising campaign against what it called “the dangers of socialized medicine and the threatening trend toward state socialism.”

The Yale Law Journal, in an article on the AMA, said that it has “acquired such power over both public and practitioners that it can channel the development of American medicine ... Measures assured of passage have been voted down, buried in committee, or substantially amended upon announcement of AMA disapproval.”

Due in part to the influence of the AMA on the press and in part to the general atmosphere of ignorance and fear of anything termed “socialist,” it is very difficult to get a realistic appraisal in this country of socialized medical plans elsewhere. Nevertheless, there are several countries that have some kind of health scheme available to their people, without having achieved socialism, creeping or galloping. They have accumulated considerable experience in planning health care and have made steady progress toward making life a little healthier, a little happier and a little more civilized than it was before. Apart from the countries in the Soviet bloc, health plans, varying in effectiveness, exist in New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, Great Britain, and they have the start of one in Canada.

Here we shall deal with socialized medicine in Great Britain, perhaps the most advanced medical system outside the Soviet bloc, whose history began on July 5, 1948, when the National Health Service came into existence.

The Background

Before 1948 there were two main types of hospitals: the Voluntary and the Municipal Hospitals. Many of the former originated in institutions founded by monastic orders in the Middle Ages. With the break with the Catholic Church in the middle of the sixteenth century, the monastic orders were dissolved, but in many cases the hospitals carried on, and today some of them still bear the original names, such as St. Thomas’s and St. Bartholemew’s of London (or “Tommy’s” and “Bart’s,” as the medical students irreverently refer to them). The vast majority of the Voluntary Hospitals, however, were founded during the “Age of Philanthropy” in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

As the name implies, the Voluntary hospitals were charitable organizations for sick poor. Local citizens with wealth founded and financed them. The medical staffs were made up of men who gave their services free.

The big drawback was that these hospitals could be set up only in areas where there were people with sufficient money to finance them, and where there was a large enough practice to enable doctors to give a few hours a week for charity work.

Even before the last world war it was obvious that something would have to be done. Fewer people were available to finance these hospitals, and there were fewer private patients to keep the doctors going. Although charges were by then imposed on the patients in accordance with their means, together with sums of money which local authorities gave them, the Voluntary Hospitals were increasingly unable to carry out their functions.

The Municipal Hospitals were started under the system of Poor Law Relief established at the end of the sixteenth century. With the earlier dissolution of the monasteries, the poor lost many of the charity organizations which at least had kept them alive, if only barely so. In the so-called “Golden Age” of English history, when English seamen sailed around the world and the first steps were taken to construct the rich and powerful British Empire, there was, at the same time, such an increase in poverty and misery that some action had to be taken. That action resulted in the Poor Law Relief system that established charity hospitals and workhouses for the poor. The system continued to expand during the next three-and-a-half centuries, until a network of such institutions had spread throughout most urban areas in the country. Conditions in the vast majority of them were absolutely deplorable.

In 1930 responsibility for these institutions was transferred from the Poor Law Boards of Guardians (groups of charitable men and women who gave time voluntarily) to the County or County Borough Councils (composed of men and women elected by the local inhabitants to run these institutions). They were given permission to turn the workhouses over for use as hospitals and in the next few years most of the wealthier and more progressive councils had done so. These new Municipal Hospitals, which in some cases began to compete with the established Voluntary Hospitals, had full-time, salaried, medical staffs. However, there were many Councils that were neither wealthy nor progressive, and in those areas hospital facilities were sadly lacking.

In addition, of course, there were a number of private hospitals. These were either very expensive, exclusive organizations for the wealthy, or run for the poor by various religious bodies.

In 1943, teams of experts were set up to undertake a complete survey of all the hospitals in the United Kingdom. Much of the subsequent hospital planning has been based on their reports.

What They Found

As far as the family doctors were concerned, there were in existence a number of different insurance schemes. The largest started in 1912, the National Health Insurance Scheme. It provided general practitioner service for all workers earning less than £250 a year, or approximately $750. This was later raised to £420, or about $1,260 a year. For the payment of additional dues, extra benefits, such as dental and ophthalmic treatment could be received. (The conversion of pounds into dollars is here made for a rough approximation on the basis of $3 for £1. The actual exchange rate fluctuates around $2.85 for £1. – Ed.)

Under this plan, both the employee and his employer paid a contribution. If the employee fell ill or was unemployed, he received sickness or unemployment benefits and free medical care from a general practitioner, together with free medicines. However, this didn’t include any hospitalization that might be needed, nor did it cover the retired old people, the wives of the workers or their children, with the result that only about one-half of the population was insured with the National Health Insurance. The rest had to pay the full doctors’ fees or join either one of the more expensive schemes or one of the numerous sickness clubs under which the people paid the doctor a few pennies a week and received medical treatment when ill without provision for covering the cost of medicine or hospitals.

When the National Health Insurance Scheme started in 1912, it was decided to pay the money to the different health insurance agencies already in existence. Some were cooperative undertakings, some were run by trade unions, and some by insurance companies, so that there arose the anomaly of a national, compulsory insurance scheme being administered through separate, private insurance organizations. The benefits tended to vary. While the sickness benefit remained fixed by law, some of the wealthier organizations gave additional services, dental care, eyeglasses and so on, while the poorer ones gave only the minimum.

In addition to the general practitioners there were also some Public Assistance doctors who looked after the destitute sick. As a general rule, medical help received by this means was not of a high standard.

There were also local health authorities which were responsible for certain aspects of public health These included clinics, midwifery, maternity and child welfare, water supplies, sewage and refuse disposal, control of epidemics and the provision of domestic help for families unable because of illness to look after themselves.

The main difficulty lay in the fact that there were over 400 authorities, many of them too small and too poor to carry out their functions. In addition, there were no home-nursing services available other than midwifery.

In 1942, Sir William Beveridge (now Lord Beveridge), a Liberal member of Parliament, proposed a comprehensive health service which would “ensure that for every citizen there is available whatever medical treatment he requires in whatever form he requires it, domiciliary or institutional, general, specialist or consultant, and will ensure also the provision of dental, ophthalmic and surgical appliances, nursing and midwifery, and rehabilitation after accidents.”

Great interest was stirred by this idea and when General Elections were held in 1945, one of the main planks in the Labor party platform was the formation of just such a comprehensive health service. The Labor party won the elections with a large majority in the House of Commons.

The British Medical Association opposed the Health Service as bitterly as the American Medical Association does here. They held a plebiscite among doctors and the whole idea was voted down – not so much by the doctors in poor urban and rural areas as by the majority of doctors who were centered in the cities and around the hospitals.

The National Health Service

However, under the leadership of Aneuran Bevan, then Minister of Health, the Labor party steered the necessary legislation through parliament and in November 1946 the National Health Service Act became law. As before mentioned, it came into effect on July 5, 1948. It applied only to England and Wales, but very similar laws were passed at the same time for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The National Health Service is available to every man, woman and child in the country without any qualification. In addition, any visitors to the country from abroad are entitled to use the Service, without charge, should they fall ill while in the country. Any visitors, however, who go to Britain deliberately to get medical treatment, are expected to pay for it.

The Service is regarded as a charge on national income in the same way as education and the armed services. It is recognized that it is as necessary to spend money on healthy bodies and minds as it is to provide education for the people.

Most of the cost of the Service is paid by the National Exchequer – that is, out of taxes. About half of the Local Health Service expenses are met from local property taxes. In addition, contributions are collected from the people.

These contributions have risen slightly since 1948. The cost today is 2s. 4d. (about 30¢) per week for a man, of which 1s. 10½d. (about 25¢) is paid by the employee and 5½d. (about 6¢) by the employer. Women, youth under 18, the self-employed and the non-employed pay somewhat less. However, it is important to remember that eligibility for any necessary treatment does not, in any way, depend upon the payment of contributions. If a person has never paid a contribution in his life, he or she is still entitled to whatever medical care may be required.

Under the National Health Service Act of 1946, the only charges were for the renewal or repair of glasses or dentures if it was considered that they had been lost or broken through carelessness, and for domestic help or nursing requisites needed at home. Any one could, if they wished, pay extra for more expensive eyeglass frames, or gold fillings in teeth, or such extra benefits which were not medically necessary. It was also possible if a patient wanted privacy in a hospital but was not sufficiently ill to need a private room, to pay a fixed sum (not more than 12s., or about $1.80) a day for private accommodation, although nothing was paid for treatment. And, of course, if someone preferred to have private treatment and not come under the Health Service at all, he or she was free to do so.

There was, as expected, and as the British Medical Association had direly warned, a sudden rush to the doctors. This came mostly from women and children excluded from the previous National Health Insurance Scheme who had needed medical help, perhaps for years, but had not been able to afford it.

There were, of course, some people who saw a chance to get something “free” and ran to the doctor’s office for every headache or minor scratch. Malingerers still exist, but on the whole, after the first few months most of those who overdid the visits to doctors realized how unnecessary this was, considering that both the doctor and the Health Service were going to stay. They stopped going unless they genuinely needed help.

Gaitskell Intervenes

In 1951, claiming the scheme was too expensive, Hugh Gaitskell, then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labor government, introduced legislation imposing charges on dental treatment. This aroused great controversy within Labor’s ranks and Aneuran Bevan resigned in protest. But the right-wing element won the day, and so set the precedent for future increases in charges.

The following year the Conservatives, who were by then in power, added additional charges to the service. These were increased again in 1956. Today, there are charges for eyeglasses, dental treatment, dentures, day nurseries for children of working mothers (made free in 1948) and for each item on a prescription for hospital out-patients or patients of general practitioners. Any patient unable to meet these charges may apply for help to the National Assistance Board. This, however, to many people has overtones of the hated means test that workers, unemployed and the aged had hoped was gone forever.

Nevertheless, in spite of these charges, the National Health Service remains largely a “free” service available to all.

On July 5, 1948, 2,688 out of the 3,040 existing hospitals came under the National Health Service. These included mental hospitals, convalescent homes and certain types of clinics, as well as straight hospitals. The remaining hospitals outside the Service are run mainly by religious bodies, and there are still a few exclusive private institutions.

The Hospital Service includes specialist and consultant facilities, maternity accomodation, both ante-and post-natal care, child-guidance clinics, tuberculosis sanitoriums, infectious-disease hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, V.D. clinics, convalescent homes, rehabilitation centers, all kinds of specialist treatment such as plastic surgery, blood transfusions, radiotherapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy, orthopedic and eye, ear, nose and throat treatment, and the provision of surgical and medical appliances such as artificial limbs, etc. Hospital in-patients are not charged for anything unless they choose to go in on a private basis.

The institutional part of the Service is organized into 15 regions, each associated with a university having a teaching hospital or medical school. The daily administration of the hospitals is carried out by Hospital Management Committees. The members of both the Regional Boards and the Hospital Management Committees serve voluntarily, the aim being to stimulate local interest and responsibility.

Nearly all the specialists and consultants take part in the service, either on a full or part-time basis. Those who participate only part-time can accept fee-paying private patients outside the Service. In order to see a specialist within the system, it is necessary to get a referral from the family doctor. The specialist usually sees patients at the hospital, but will visit the patient at home if he is too ill to go out.

Since 1952, hospital out-patients have to pay 1s. (about 15¢) for each item on a prescription for drugs and medicines (unless administered at the hospital), and there are charges for elastic hosiery, surgical abdominal supports, surgical footwear and wigs. Exceptions to these charges are made for patients receiving National Assistance and their dependents, war pensioners receiving medicine for war disabilities and patients being treated for venereal disease. Children under 16, or older ones who are still attending school fulltime, are exempted from charges on surgical appliances.

By the end of 1959, there were 76 distribution centers providing free hearing aids, an item which, before 1948, was not covered by any of the insurance schemes. Batteries and maintenance are also free.

The family doctor, dental, pharmaceutical and ophthalmic services are administered on the local level by executive councils whose members serve voluntarily. Twelve members of each council are elected by local doctors, dentists and pharmacists; eight are appointed by the local health authority and five by the Minister of Health.

Nearly all the general practitioners in the country take part in the Service. This does not prevent them from having private, fee-paying patients as well if they wish. They are paid according to the number of patients they accept on their list, or panel, as it is called. They receive 18s. (about $2.70) per patient per year and they are limited to a maximum of 3,500 patients for a single-handed practitioner. If the doctor wishes to take on more patients, he can only do so if he takes in a partner or assistant. The average yearly income for doctors today is £2,426 (about $7,275); but it is important to remember that these figures mean more in England where the average national income is about $30.00 a week.

In addition, the doctor receives 12s. (about $1.80) for every patient between 501 and 1,500 on his panel. Also, interest-free loans are provided for doctors wishing to improve their waiting rooms and other facilities.

All doctors who joined the Service in July 1948 were free to continue practicing where they were. However, any doctor wishing to join since then must receive permission from the Medical Practices Committee, consisting of nine members, seven of whom are doctors, six of them in actual practice. The Committee may only refuse a qualified doctor if the number of applications exceeds the number of vacancies in a given area. The Committee surveys the country’s medical needs and classifies each area as “restricted” (no additional doctors needed), “intermediate” (additional doctors may soon be needed) and “designated” (more doctors required).

Free Choice of Doctors

Everyone is free to choose his or her own doctor and the doctor is free to accept or reject a prospective patient. A patient may change doctors at any time, either because he or she is dissatisfied or has moved. In an emergency, any doctor will give treatment, whether or not the patient is on his panel; and if someone falls ill while away from home, he will receive treatment where he is. The doctor receives additional fees under the Health Service for treating these extra patients.

Dentists are free to have private patients as well as patients under the Health Service. Patients do not have to register with a particular dentist, but may go to anyone who is willing to accept them. The dentist is paid for the treatment given each patient. Since 1952, there has been a charge on dental treatment. The original examination is still free, but there is a maximum charge of £1 (about $3.00) for any treatment required. If dentures are needed, the patient pays something like half the cost – up to a maximum of £4 5s. (about $12.75). Free dental care is provided for children under 21, expectant mothers, or women who have had a child during the preceding twelve months.

Free sight testing is available to all. However, since 1951, if eyeglasses are required, the patient pays 10s. (about $1.50) for each lens and the full cost of the frames. Children’s glasses, however, are free in standard frames. If treatment or surgery is required, it is referred to the Hospital Eye Service and comes under the free Hospital Service. The optician is paid for individual treatment given.

As stated earlier, there is a charge of 1s. (about 15¢) on each item on a prescription. Most of the pharmacists are now under the Health Service, and they take turns to ensure that a pharmacy is open in each area in the evenings, on Sundays and on holidays. A patient has to pay the full cost of the drugs or medicines only if he has chosen to go to a doctor on a private basis.

In addition, there exist Local Health Authorities, mainly concerned with providing care for patients in their own homes. For some of these services, such as domestic help, there are charges in accordance with the patient’s means. But, on the whole, most of the services such as midwifery, home nursing, etc., are provided free.

One area in which there has been great improvement is in mental health work. Mental and physical health have been brought closer together to the extent that most hospitals now have mental wards attached. In fact, 44% of the hospital beds are today reserved for mental patients. All treatment is available free.

Broadmoor Institute for insane criminals is now regarded less as a prison and more as a treatment center. Since 1948, it has been run under the Minister of Health instead of the Home Secretary who is responsible for the prison system.

While there are many improvements that still can be made, the National Health Service has brought tremendous help to the British people. Today, no one says, “What if I should fall ill? How could we manage?” It is bad enough to be ill, without having the additional worry that your family is mortgaging its future to pay doctors’ and hospital bills. That worry has now been lifted, and patients are able to receive full care without their recovery being hampered by anxiety over the cost of treatment.

Perhaps the greatest advantage is the growth of preventive medicine. When people feel a pain, they no longer have to put off seeking help until it’s too late. Regular physical check-ups, even before symptoms appear, are no longer the privilege of the rich. In this way many lives are saved and much suffering is prevented.

Furthermore, since doctors are assured of their income, they tend to go out to the poor urban and rural districts where an extreme shortage of doctors used to exist. Today some excellent work is being done in small country hospitals that previously had only second-rate medical staffs and few facilities.

Many attempts have been made to whittle away the original gains made by the British working people. Today the Conservative government is engaged in trying to force through legislation designed to increase the charges still more. If they are successful, and with their present large majority in the House of Commons there is every reason to believe they will be, the weekly contributions will be raised by 1s. (about 15¢); prescriptions will be doubled to 2s. (about 30¢) per item; the cost of dentures will rise to a maximum of £5 (about $15.00); private hospital beds for patients receiving medical treatment under the National Health Service will cost twice as much as before; and welfare foods for children such as orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin pills, previously free or only nominal in cost, will now carry a substantial charge.

The Labor party is fighting these increases and parliament is engaging in many late-night sittings while the question is hotly disputed. As leader of the Labor party, Hugh Gaitskell is complaining loudly and bitterly that the Conservatives are gradually beginning to move away from the conception of a Welfare State. “Naturally,” he says, “we are strongly opposed to these moves.” Naturally – but it was Gaitskell himself who imposed the first charges.

In spite of these increases the National Health Service has become so much a part of British life, that it would not be possible for anyone to suggest abolishing it now. The British people have accepted it and would not tolerate its removal, and many members of the medical profession would now support them.

An indication of the opposition that might be expected is shown in the demand from a branch of the National Union of Mineworkers for a 24-hour general strike in protest against the latest charges, together with a call for the nationalization of the drug and medical supply industry and a cut in the arms program.

At the same time, the London Local Medical Committee, which represents about 2,500 general practitioners, consultants, medical officers of health and private practitioners in the County of London, passed a resolution with only one dissenting vote, against the increased prescription charges. Part of their resolution states:

That the committee opposes charges on prescriptions on principle, since they create a financial barrier between the patient and the treatment he or she requires; That the committee supports colleagues who do their own dispensing in their objections to the collection of these taxes for the Government.

Even the Conservatives recognize that to attempt to abolish the Service would create a situation with which they would be unable to deal. It was a Conservative Minister of Health who stated:

“The National Health Service, which started on July 5, 1948, is an agreed Service from the point of view of politics. All three of the major political parties have accepted it and played their part in its planning, and it is therefore wrong to refer to it as ‘Socialized Medicine’ as though it were a feature of one party only. All three parties are committed to it, and it is not expected that a change of government would make any serious difference to the scheme as a whole, although details might be altered.”

It will be a great day for the American people when a spokesman from, say the Republican party, can say the same thing about a similar medical plan in this country.

[John Simkin]

Bill, thank you for publishing this excellent account of the NHS.

[Len Colby]

Bill, thank you for publishing this excellent account of the NHS.

John though I support your POV in this debate an article from 1961 is not relevant to understanding the current state of affairs and it hardly came from an unbiased source.

Earlier Craig claimed the high cost of medical care in the US is not borne directly by workers but only 60% of Americans get their coverage though work and even many of them are affected by it.

For decades, most company-sponsored health plans gave employees relatively little financial responsibility for the cost of their care — often a small “co-pay” portion of a medical bill or prescription refill. But the relentless rise in health care, often invisible to workers, has prompted companies to begin passing along those steeper costs.

“Employers are in a desperate bind,” said Dahlia Remler, a health economist at Baruch College at the City University of New York. “There are only three ways they can deal with (higher health care costs): they can have lower profits, higher prices or lower wages.”

The sharp increase in health insurance premiums is hitting both employers and employees hard. Over the past decade, the average annual health insurance premium for all workers rose 131 percent to $13,375 — or more than four times the rate of inflation, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In response, some companies have dropped coverage altogether. As of this year, 60 percent of employers offered health benefits — down from 69 percent in 2000.

Aside from saving money, companies are hoping that workers who bear more health costs directly will become better consumers of care. The hope is that by giving employees more responsibility for paying the bills, they’ll be more likely to control costs by, say, opting for a cheaper generic drug when it’s available.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33333368/ns/bu...rsonal_finance/

[William Kelly]

Len,

How could a history of the British health service not be relevant?

Also, someone sent me this clip of Rep. Rogers (R. Michigan) claiming that the National Cancer Intelligence Center (UK) reports that you have a less chance of survival of various forms of cancer in the UK than USA.

[Don Jeffries]

This has been a very interesting thread. I find myself in the unaccustomed position of strongly agreeing with Andy Walker and disagreeing with Terry Mauro.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of the British health system, but it simply couldn't be as bad as ours. I just don't think it would be possible for anyone to devise a poorer one. I worked directly for a huge health care system for decades, and I could tell you countless horror stories about what I personally saw (and I had no real direct contact with patients). The fact is, for more than a decade now, the cost of health insurance has been rising far more rapidly than the average cost of living raise for the majority of American workers. To make matters worse, there has been a simultaneous cutting of benefits- higher co-pays, with fewer procedures covered.

In this country, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, health care administrators and doctors profit enormously from the present system. There is obviously a strong incentive for them to keep the present plan. Our politicians also have one of the best medical programs in the country. They, too, have little reason to push for change. Obama's attempts at reform are tiny and only baby steps in the right direction. We have to have a single payer, government run health care system, like England and Canada. There is no other option, because those who have been getting rich from the present system are not going to willingly give up their profits, and without them doing that costs can never be cut. Without drastic cost cuts, the present system simply cannot endure.

Either we go entirely in the other direction- ala Craig Lamson- and promote the idea that health care is a "privilege" and not a fundemantal right, or we scrap the unworkable present system. Everyone should have access to medical care- I don't know how that can even be up for debate.

[John Simkin]

In this country, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, health care administrators and doctors profit enormously from the present system. There is obviously a strong incentive for them to keep the present plan. Our politicians also have one of the best medical programs in the country. They, too, have little reason to push for change. Obama's attempts at reform are tiny and only baby steps in the right direction. We have to have a single payer, government run health care system, like England and Canada. There is no other option, because those who have been getting rich from the present system are not going to willingly give up their profits, and without them doing that costs can never be cut. Without drastic cost cuts, the present system simply cannot endure.

This was also the case in Britain before the Second World War. That is why the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and most of the doctors opposed the introduction of the NHS. The problem for the establishment was that the Labour Party had won a landslide victory in 1945 and so the plans for health-care reforms went ahead. However, the government did foolishly make certain concessions that eventually led to Aneurin Bevan resigning from the government. I am watching the situation in the US with great interest. I fear that the president will eventually buckle and will water-down his proposals.

[Terry Mauro]

This has been a very interesting thread. I find myself in the unaccustomed position of strongly agreeing with Andy Walker and disagreeing with Terry Mauro.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of the British health system, but it simply couldn't be as bad as ours. I just don't think it would be possible for anyone to devise a poorer one. I worked directly for a huge health care system for decades, and I could tell you countless horror stories about what I personally saw (and I had no real direct contact with patients). The fact is, for more than a decade now, the cost of health insurance has been rising far more rapidly than the average cost of living raise for the majority of American workers. To make matters worse, there has been a simultaneous cutting of benefits- higher co-pays, with fewer procedures covered.

In this country, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, health care administrators and doctors profit enormously from the present system. There is obviously a strong incentive for them to keep the present plan. Our politicians also have one of the best medical programs in the country. They, too, have little reason to push for change. Obama's attempts at reform are tiny and only baby steps in the right direction. We have to have a single payer, government run health care system, like England and Canada. There is no other option, because those who have been getting rich from the present system are not going to willingly give up their profits, and without them doing that costs can never be cut. Without drastic cost cuts, the present system simply cannot endure.

Either we go entirely in the other direction- ala Craig Lamson- and promote the idea that health care is a "privilege" and not a fundemantal right, or we scrap the unworkable present system. Everyone should have access to medical care- I don't know how that can even be up for debate.

Don,

You must have trouble reading. I never made any comparison of British vs US health care system.

I exposed the Euthanasia policy coming out of Britian, approved and implemented by the NHS.

[Guest Tom Scully]

http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=%...nG=Search+Books

Telling the world‎ - Page 40

Upton Sinclair - Biography & Autobiography - 1939 -

...During our EPIC Campaign in California I was asked to define Fascism, and I gave

the answer : " Fascism is capitalism plus murder."

And understand me : that is not a joke, that is a scientific analysis.

Four years more have passed. I note that Fascism is becoming cannibalistic.

It is beginning to devour itself.

The capitalists have raised up a monster which they cannot control.

Murder feeds on blood and grows more gluttonous. In the totalitarian state even

the capitalists may be devoured. They too may become slaves, just like the

masters of money who own these things and the factories to make them. It is the

masters of money who get their way in the modern world....

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/12/...-neo-feudalism/

Health Care on the Road to Neo-Feudalism

By: emptywheel Tuesday December 15, 2009

I believe that if the Senate health care bill passes as Joe Lieberman has demanded it–with no Medicare buy-in or public option–it will be a significant step further on our road to neo-feudalism. As such, I find it far too dangerous to our democracy to pass–even if it gives millions (perhaps unaffordable) subsidies for health care.

20% of your labor belongs to Aetna

Consider, first of all, this fact. The bill, if it became law, would legally require a portion of Americans to pay more than 20% of the fruits of their labor to a private corporation in exchange for 70% of their health care costs.

Consider a family of 4 making $66,150–a family at 300% of the poverty level and therefore, hypothetically, at least, “subsidized.” That family would be expected to pay $6482.70 (in today’s dollars) for premiums–or $540 a month. But that family could be required to pay $7973 out of pocket for copays and so on. So if that family had a significant–but not catastrophic–medical event, it would be asked to pay its insurer almost 22% of its income to cover health care. Several months ago, I showed why this was a recipe for continued medical bankruptcy (though the numbers have changed somewhat). But here’s another way to think about it. Senate Democrats are requiring middle class families to give the proceeds of over a month of their work to a private corporation–one allowed to make 15% or maybe even 25% profit on the proceeds of their labor.

It’s one thing to require a citizen to pay taxes–to pay into the commons. It’s another thing to require taxpayers to pay a private corporation, and to have up to 25% of that go to paying for luxuries like private jets and gyms for the company CEOs.

It’s the same kind of deal peasants made under feudalism: some proportion of their labor in exchange for protection (in this case, from bankruptcy from health problems, though the bill doesn’t actually require the private corporations to deliver that much protection).In this case, the federal government becomes an appendage to do collections for the corporations.

Mind you, not only will citizens be required to pay private corporations. But middle class citizens may be required to pay more to these private corporations than they pay in federal and state taxes. Using these numbers, this middle class family of four will pay roughly 15% in federal, state, and social security taxes. This family will pay around $10,015 for their share of the commons–paying for defense, roads, some policing, and their social safety net share. That’s 15% of their income. They will, at a minimum, be asked to pay 9.8% of their income to the insurance company. And if they have a significant medical event, they’ll pay 22%–far, far more than they’ll pay into the commons. So it’s bad enough that this bill would require citizens to pay a tithe to a corporation. It’s far worse when you consider that some citizens would pay more in their corporate tithe than they would to the commons.

And, finally, while the Senate bill does not accord these corporate CEOs a droit de seigneur–the right to a woman’s virginity the night of her marriage–if Ben Nelson (and Bart Stupak) get their way, it would make a distinction in this entire compact for how the property of a woman’s womb shall be treated.

Single payer for the benefit of corporations

And for those who promise we’ll go back and fix this later, once we achieve universal health care, understand what will have happened in the meantime. The idea, of course, is to establish some means to get people single payer coverage (before Lieberman, this would have been through a public option or Medicare buy-in) and, over time, expand it.

In fact, this bill will move toward single payer, too–though not the kind we want. For the large number of people who live in a place where there is limited competition, this bill will require them to get health care through the oligopoly or monopoly provider. It’ll work great for the provider: they will be able to dictate rates. But the Senate bill allows these blossoming single payer providers to keep up to 25% of the benefit in profits and marketing costs, and pass little of that benefit onto citizens. If we make private corporations our single payer, how are we going to convince them to cede control when we ask them to let the government be the single payer?

The reason this matters, though, is the power it gives the health care corporations. We can’t ditch Halliburton or Blackwater because they have become the sole primary contractor providing precisely the services they do. And so, like it or not, we’re dependent on them. And if we were to try to exercise oversight over them, we’d ultimately face the reality that we have no leverage over them, so we’d have to accept whatever they chose to provide. This bill gives the health care industry the leverage we’ve already given Halliburton and Blackwater.

The feudal health care filibuster-proof majority

It’s the 9.8% tithe that bothers me the most. But for those who think we can fix it, consider this, too. If the Senate bill passes, in its current form, it will mean that the health care industry was able to dictate–through their Senators Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson–what they wanted the US Congress to do. They will have succeeded in dictating the precise terms of legislation.

Now, that’s not the first time that has happened. It certainly happened on telecom immunity. It certainly has happened, repeatedly, on Defense contracting (see also Randy Cunningham). But none of these egregious instances of corporations dictating legislation included a tithe–the requirement that citizens pay corporations to provide their service, rather than allowing the government to contract the service.

This is a fundamentally different relationship we’re talking about–one that gives corporations vast new powers. And the fact that–with one temper tantrum from Joe Lieberman–the corporations were able to dictate the terms of this new relationship deeply troubles me.

When this passes, it will become clear that Congress is no longer the sovereign of this nation. Rather, the corporations dictating the laws will be.

I understand the temptation to offer 30 million people health care. What I don’t understand is the nonchalance with which we’re about to fundamentally shift the relationships of governance in doing so.

We’ve seen our Constitution and means of government under attack in the last 8 years. This does so in a different–but every bit as significant way. We don’t mandate tithing corporations in this country–at least not yet. And it troubles me that so many Democrats are rushing to do so, without considering the logical consequences.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Tom Scully

[John Simkin]

Tom, what do you think of the President's proposed reforms?

[Guest Tom Scully]

Tom, what do you think of the President's proposed reforms?

I could have written this in answer to your question, if I had the time and was a much more talented and well informed authority than I am.:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...ouse/index.html

Wednesday, Dec 16, 2009 05:17 EST

White House as helpless victim on healthcare

By Glenn Greenwald

Of all the posts I wrote this year, the one that produced the most vociferious email backlash -- easily -- was this one from August, which examined substantial evidence showing that, contrary to Obama's occasional public statements in support of a public option, the White House clearly intended from the start that the final health care reform bill would contain no such provision and was actively and privately participating in efforts to shape a final bill without it. From the start, assuaging the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries was a central preoccupation of the White House -- hence the deal negotiated in strict secrecy with Pharma to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation, a blatant violation of both Obama's campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN). Indeed, Democrats led the way yesterday in killing drug re-importation, which they endlessly claimed to support back when they couldn't pass it. The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party -- rather than the GOP -- will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse.

* Continue Reading