Now on ScienceBlogs: The death of Tetrapod Zoology
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Klingenschmitt Joins the Chorus of Crazy | Main | Gribbit: Still an Idiot »
Posted on: August 11, 2009 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton
From the Investor's Business Daily:
People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
There's just one tiny little problem with this: Stephen Hawking was born and raised in the UK and has lived there all his life. He teaches at Cambridge. That's in the UK. This ranks up there with the French not having a word for entrepreneur.
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
Comments
I can't think of an adequate response beyond /facepalm to be honest.
It woudl be far to filled with elipses as I try to struggle how people this dim can actually function in the real world.
Posted by: Captain Obvious | August 11, 2009 9:45 AM
And it appeared in Investors Business Daily, which allegedly provides its readers with accurate information on which to make business and investment decisions? I'm beginning to understand how the economy got as screwed up as it is.
Posted by: flatlander100 | August 11, 2009 9:49 AM
Are you sure Ed? He doesn't have a British accent.
But seriously, haven't these people ever heard of Google, or Wikipedia? Does reality really mean so little that they don't even check in from time to time to see what it looks like?
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 11, 2009 9:50 AM
Dammit, Abby beat me to the punch(line) while I was fooling with Preview!
Posted by: Squiddhartha | August 11, 2009 9:51 AM
I have conservative friends who periodically email me batshit crazy stuff from the IBD like this argument. I find it very disconcerting that their demographic is so gullible to Palin-like rhetoric.
This article is an example of an observation that argues against Thomas Franks' thesis that the plutocracy uses social conservative rhetoric to merely pander to the gullible loons. In fact observations such as this IBD article strongly infers a hefty number of plutocrats are as loony as their voting constituency when it comes to certain issues.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 11, 2009 9:55 AM
This hate-piece is in a business/investment publication? That certainly lends credence to the theory that all this emotional nonsense is being drummed up by business interests, and not the "grass roots."
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 11, 2009 9:57 AM
And this from a publication called Investor's Business Daily?
These guys really need to tell their readers about the unique investment opportunity I can offer in a number of New York bridges.
Not to mention sure-fire winners like my ejector seat for helicopters, the inflatable dart-board, braille radio, the bungalow elevator and the sponge wrecking ball (for silent demolitions).
Posted by: Amadán | August 11, 2009 9:58 AM
The funniest part about this is the IBD is based out of Los Angeles. I thought LA was the bastion of liberal hell raisers?
Posted by: theroachman | August 11, 2009 10:00 AM
Well, they are correct. If Stephen Hawkings has lived all his in the UK, and he continues that tread, he is going to die in the UK. There is also a good probability that he will die in a UK health care facility, or possibly at home, in the presence of a health care provider.
Posted by: Thoracantha | August 11, 2009 10:09 AM
@ Squiddhartha :
Actually, Ricky Gervais did a standup routine a few years back where he accused Stephen Hawking of being pretentious because he always puts on an American accent. I guess what we're seeing is convergence in action.
Posted by: Philbert | August 11, 2009 10:11 AM
"And this from a publication called Investor's Business Daily"
The IBD is pretty notorious for having an editorial page to the right of the Wall Street Journal.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 11, 2009 10:13 AM
NO DEATH CAMPS!
NO DEATH CAMPS!
NO DEATH--
(dang...channeling that kind of stupidity is harder than it looks...)
Posted by: gwangung | August 11, 2009 10:15 AM
It's true, you really CAN'T make this shit up.
Posted by: democommie | August 11, 2009 10:15 AM
I don't think this should be categorized as a DUMBASS quote: I believe these people know what they are saying is false and are simply joining others on the extremes in peddling lies. Given the onslaught of crap that has been coming from these clowns, a comment as easily falsified as this one will simply be filed as one more "fact" by some percentage of their target audience, and that's all they care about.
Posted by: dean | August 11, 2009 10:19 AM
Actually, on reflection, I'm going to be scrupulously fair to the Investor's Business Daily. Stephen Hawking, IIRC from a documentary I saw a while back, does not rely solely on the NHS for his treatment. As a wealthy individual (thanks to being a best-selling author), he is in a position where he can employ a live-in nurse to cater to his needs and thus the care he receives is not necessarily typical for a Motor Neurone Disease sufferer in the UK.
That being said, my father has a degenerative neurological condition (Multiple Sclerosis) and the treatment that he receives on the NHS is has never been anything short of excellent. The only complaint I can recall in the last 20 is that he once had to postpone surgery at very short notice, and that was because his surgeon had fallen and broken his wrist. Certainly, no-one has ever at any point suggested euthanising my father (although my inheritance is starting to look very tempting).
Posted by: Philbert | August 11, 2009 10:26 AM
@theroachman: While L.A. is certainly a bastion of liberalism (owing mostly to its sheer size, demographic diversity, and the presence of Hollywood), it has its fair share of right-wing crazies. In fact, a good number of the most prominent far-right talking heads in this country operate in solidly blue locations (e.g. Ann Coulter, Fox News, Michael Savage, etc.).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 11, 2009 10:36 AM
@ Captain Obvious:
The problem isn't just that these dim-wits can barely function in the real world, it's that they *own* most of it and believe that they're entitled to *run* it.
Posted by: cognitive dissident | August 11, 2009 10:41 AM
I'd like to think that the writer is secretly a liberal, pulling a Colbert, in which case this quote is pure genius. But I doubt it.
Posted by: eric | August 11, 2009 10:41 AM
@theroachman & Sadie Morrison: I personally think that it's because the amenities are so much more handy in bastions of liberalism. Where in Palin's "real America" are you going to find the equivalent of 5th Ave fashion and shopping, world-class amusement parks, concentrations of wealth, top-notch restaurants, high brow entertainment, [relatively] easy-to-use public transportation, etc.? IMO, the Ann Coulters, Michael Savages, and Fox News workers are hooked on the things they hate, but can't openly admit to it.
Posted by: mercurianferret | August 11, 2009 10:42 AM
It's really too bad the IBD doesn't allow commenting on their articles.
That does seem to be a much more common 'feature' of the more right wing rags. So much for teaching the controversy. (pronounced contROverSEE for the British ;p)
Posted by: FastLane | August 11, 2009 10:43 AM
For those of you interested, Nate Silver did a post on the comparison between Canadian and UK health care. It's a little simplistic, but gets the point across:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/not-all-socialist-countries-are-alike.html
Oh, and Abby, I concur with Squiddhartha @4. (Of course this late in the game, someone else would likely have stated it, even if you and squiddhartha didn't.)
Posted by: Umlud | August 11, 2009 10:45 AM
mercurianferret:
I just gotta ask, what's with the blognomen? I can't think of ferrets as being mercurial so much as lethally pissed off at everything that's small enough for them to eat.
Okay, that aside; I think you're correct about the reichwhine talkingshitheads with one small addendum. The main reason they are there is because they can insert their KKKrazy directly into the fucktards' Brain IV that is FauxNews.
Posted by: democommie | August 11, 2009 10:48 AM
"Where in Palin's "real America" are you going to find the equivalent of 5th Ave fashion and shopping, world-class amusement parks, concentrations of wealth, top-notch restaurants, high brow entertainment, [relatively] easy-to-use public transportation, etc.?"
Well for one, here in Minnesota.
Posted by: MReap | August 11, 2009 10:50 AM
Philbert - between direct payments and the increasing trend towards individualisation, there are and will be a considerable number of people in Hawkings position who get care like he gets.
Individual budgets will allow the disabled to pursue a number of different routes to purchasing their own care plans. These can range from having everything done for you, to taking all responsibility and effectively being the employer.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/04/08/102669/direct-payments-personal-budgets-and-individual-budgets.html
Posted by: Iain George | August 11, 2009 11:00 AM
You know what the really sad thing is? Google "Stephen Hawking" and the very first search result is his bio on Wikipedia. The very first sentence of the first paragraph in that entry:
"Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942) is a British theoretical physicist...."
The second sentence:
"Hawking is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge..."
All at a cost to me of 5 seconds of typing and a 2 mouse clicks. Very economical wouldn't you say IBD?
Do these clowns even care if they are proven wrong or do they just love the sound of their own proverbial voice?
Posted by: n | August 11, 2009 11:00 AM
The stupid is mind boggling.
Posted by: Owen | August 11, 2009 11:03 AM
Isn't the French word for "entrepreneur.", uh ... entrepreneur.?
Gives you some idea how seriously one should regard these twits. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 11, 2009 11:14 AM
@Iain George #24
I wasn't criticising Prof. Hawking - I was just trying to come up with some kind of sensible interpretation of the IBD's baffling comment. Certainly he has every right to "top-up" his care as he sees fit.
Posted by: Philbert | August 11, 2009 11:15 AM
mercurianferret and Sadie Morrison
Having grown up in Santa Barbara I have been lucky to experience the joys of most everything Southern California has to offer. The joke being that Southern California has been cast as some sort of liberal utopia for some time. Despite the evidence otherwise as presented by people such as Arnie, Sonny Bono, Nixon, Reagan, Randy 'Duke' Cunningham or B2 Bob Dornan. People tend to stereo type when they become jealous or uncomfortable with things they do not understand or will never take time to learn about, much less visit.
Posted by: theroachman | August 11, 2009 11:32 AM
there is NO place to comment on the actual 'editorial' at ibd. i wonder why?
Posted by: rose bush | August 11, 2009 11:38 AM
Re: 30
I noticed that as well. The delicious irony.
Posted by: n | August 11, 2009 11:42 AM
@theroachman: The last time I was in Southern California I was four years old, so I'm not terribly qualified to speak from experience. But, like you, I often cringe at sweeping, utopian generalizations of "liberal California." It is my understanding that, with the exception of Los Angeles proper and (more particularly) Hollywood, Southern California tends to be quite conservative overall. Six years ago, as a moony eighteen-year-old thoroughly fed up with Kansas, I dreamed some SoCal dreams, baby. Now I know that Southern California (even L.A.) is decidedly not my kind of place. I was in the Bay Area four years ago, though, and absolutely loved it. Some day, maybe.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 11, 2009 11:43 AM
Heh. Make that "moony-eyed," please.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 11, 2009 11:47 AM
their point may be ridiculous but so is your response. Just because Hawking lives in the UK doesn't mean he doesn't pay for private health care does it?
Posted by: rogerroger | August 11, 2009 11:49 AM
Philbert - didn't say you were. I was just pointing out that there are a few ways that someone like Hawking can get a considerable amount of care at home that is paid for by the evil state. That could include live-in care if needed and wanted.
Posted by: Iain George | August 11, 2009 11:49 AM
Also, one of the arguments put forward by reform opponents is that any government option, let alone an NHS style single-payer system, would kill off private insurance entirely. Even "moderate" Lindsey Graham has stated this explicitly. The fact that Hawking can get private nursing care on top of his NHS care (which he had to take advantage of just a few months ago when he was hospitalised) rather disproves this assertion.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 11, 2009 11:56 AM
Now, let's be fair to IBD. Editorials this disconnected from reality could also have just as easily come from The Wall Street Journal. Oh, wait...
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | August 11, 2009 12:02 PM
Hawking does pay for private healthcare which goes above and beyond what the average person gets in the UK. It works the same way here in the US because the rich get more here in the US and in the UK. There is nothing wrong with that. You earned it you get to reap the rewards.
I fail to see how collectively our responses are as ridicules as the anonymous author of the editorial. Your post makes little sense.
Posted by: theroachman | August 11, 2009 12:14 PM
This is what the NHS provised MND/ALS sufferers:
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Motor-neurone-disease/Pages/Treatment.aspx
Pretty good treatment, no? Right down to the voice synthesizer.
Posted by: emma | August 11, 2009 12:16 PM
See, what they meant to say, is that if England didn't have UHC, Stephen Hawking would be running around playing basketball with Obama.
I think it was IBD that "broke" the "news" about the health care bill making private insurance illegal by 2011. Looks like they are continuing their extremely sloppy writing.
Posted by: MarkusR | August 11, 2009 12:18 PM
the French not having a word for entrepreneur.
Who came up with that one? I forgot.
Posted by: angulimala | August 11, 2009 12:18 PM
the French not having a word for entrepreneur.
Was attributed to George Bush but was proven to never have been said
Posted by: theroachaman | August 11, 2009 12:24 PM
@theroachman #42
One cannot prove that he didn't say it. But yea, one could say with a high degree of confidence that it was a joke that some people mistook for an actual incident.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 11, 2009 12:35 PM
For all the dumb ass things George Bush has said this proved to not be one of them
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.asp
Posted by: theroachman | August 11, 2009 12:38 PM
All that's proved is that Blair's aid says Blair didn't hear Bush say it. It does not rule out that Bush said it and Blair didn't hear it, Blair's aid being wrong/lying, Snopes being wrong/lying, or any other number of possible, though highly unlikely, scenarios. I was just being a pedantic sciblog reader and pointing out the pitfalls in proving a negative. I'm not trying to claim Bush actually said it.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 11, 2009 12:45 PM
Abby Normal:
You don't have to prove it. You've said, several times, that it's not impossible that he did say it. In the minds of Sci-Blogs readers in general and "Dispatches" in particular that's enough for it to be the tru..., oh, I'm sorry I was confused for a moment.
Posted by: democommie | August 11, 2009 1:08 PM
well, they "cleaned it up" -
Editor's Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK.
It "corrected" it by totally removing the entire paragraph the excerpt was part of.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | August 11, 2009 1:20 PM
Michael Heath: I don't know; I think Mr. Franks would agree that there's a layer of lunacy among the plutocrats which enables their use of even greater lunacy to push the Republican faithful where they wish them to go. His argument always seemed, to me at least, to be not merely that they are cynical enough to push concepts and policies which they know to be socially detrimental for their own benefit, but also that they are arrogant enough to cast the world in such a way where mild doses of self-aggrandizing and ignorant rhetoric seem sensible. In other words, he seems to recognize that one has to eat a little bit of the crazy soup to be willing to serve it to others. Then again, that's simply my own sense of his arguments and may be wrong considering I've never talked to the man about it.
Posted by: Julian | August 11, 2009 1:22 PM
Well, you can only bend over backwards so far...
In any case, Hawking was struck down by MND (ALS/Lou Gehrig's Disease) long before he could afford to buy his own health care (he didn't even have a PhD at the time) and decades before he became a best-selling author, so there is very little doubt that the NHS was the sole provider of his health care for many years. Given that ALS *is* almost always a death sentence (within 5 years) and Hawking was almost certainly an NHS patient until long after that initial five years was over then the IBD could not have picked a worse example if they had tried.
Truly dumb.
The current "debate" (the word unfairly dignifies what's happening) over health care has been a source of unending frustration for me, given that I have lived under both systems for a long time (I was 30 when I left the UK to live in the US). The vast majority of the right-wing talking points about health care -- particularly when they talk about the UK's NHS -- are so patently and absurdly wrong it makes me want to scream.
1. Waiting months for critical surgeries. That might have had some truth to it 20 years ago, but today there are very few waiting lists (except transplants of course) and none for the most critical of cases. You may have to wait a few weeks for elective surgery, and that's about it. All the waiting list stats are published on NHS web site and updated every month, and are easy to check.
2. The NHS doesn't bother to offer expensive treatment to old people. My parents are both still alive today (at almost 80) thanks to the NHS. In the past 10 years, my Dad has had a stent installed to unclog an artery and my Mum has had surgery for bladder cancer (and repair to torn shoulder ligaments). My Dad is suffering from narrowing arteries in his legs which is painful when he walks. If exercise doesn't improve his condition, he can opt for surgery at any time. Both my grandmothers had surgery in their 80s, and that was 25 years ago when outcomes were much less reliable than they are today.
3. No private health insurance. Rudy Giuliani once said, during the past Republican primary, that if he had been living in London when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, he would be dead by now. Ignoring the fact that the prognosis for British prostate cancer sufferers is likely only slightly worse than for US patients (comparisons are complicated by differences in detection rates and other factors), if Giuliani had been living in London, he would be paying for the best private health insurance money could buy. Hello? Harley Street anyone?
4. Rationing. Yeah, there is rationing in the NHS. Big whoop. My American individual health plan insurer refused to approve one of the two tests my doctor recommended on a mole he had removed from my back. Given my fair skin and other risk factors, I am a high risk for skin cancer. The test was $100, and I had used, oh, about $80 of my $2500 deductible at that point, so I would have had to pay the full price myself anyway. (And I was not even given the option to pay for it outside of my insurance plan.) An acquaintance of mine works for a hospital and his only job is to battle the insurance companies for coverage of the treatments they are recommending to their patients. There is no such thing has unrationed health care (no system can afford it).
In the end, both systems have their pluses and minuses. While I was in a well paid corporate job, I had no issues with the American health care system. Now that I am self-employed, I can see all too easily how so many Americans end up losing everything they have when they are stricken with a serious illness. No British person ever has to go bankrupt because of medical bills. When you are self-employed or a small business owner, it's hard to put too high a price on the peace of mind that affords.
Posted by: tacitus | August 11, 2009 1:23 PM
Interestingly, that paragraph has now disappeared and is replaced by a header stating:
Editor's Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK.
Posted by: Lsuoma | August 11, 2009 1:26 PM
It is true that there is no clear and verifiable proof that Shrub, beyond a doubt, said this, and so from a scholarly perspective we can't accept it. However, it does possess a kind of verisimilitude which, much like Twain's reputed but unprovable quote about statistics, explains something about the character of the man it is attributed to even if it isn't the truth.
Besides, it's pretty damn funny (and cathartic) to call that buffoon an idiot of gigantic proportions.
Posted by: Julian | August 11, 2009 1:28 PM
The correction they made is still pretty bad. They should have added the fact that Hawking is Brittish.
Posted by: theroachman | August 11, 2009 1:29 PM
The staggering ignorance of the Stephen Hawking thing aside, it is also interesting to note that they resort to blatant lies in order to make a point where there is none.
Contrary to the claim that, in March 2009, NICE ruled against the use of Sutent; since February 2009, Sutent has actually been on NICE's approved list of treatments - a direct result of monopsony working to force Pfizer into lowering the price of the drug - whereas even most private medical insurers in the US continue to refuse to fund any sort treatment with Sutent, because they consider that Pfizer's price renders the drug uneconomical.
As for Lapatinib, no final decision has even been made. The closing date for submissions on the drug was only a little over one week ago; so the claim that NICE has ruled against it is a complete fabrication. Like with Sutent however, most private medical insurers in the US continue to refuse to fund any sort treatment with Lapatinib.
It also ignores the fact that, in the US, Stephen Hawking would be uninsurable and most certainly would have been left to rot, or die, in poverty.
Posted by: Mark | August 11, 2009 1:45 PM
The worst part is, about one-fifth of our population will eat this up with a spoon. I bet it won't be long before someone brings this up a town hall meeting, possibly by the same guy who wants the government to keep their hands off his Medicare.
Posted by: catgirl | August 11, 2009 1:48 PM
Oh, just when I thought, after seeing the Creation "Museum" exhibits in PZ's blog, that I used up my quota for stupid for the entire year *facepalm*
Posted by: Sara | August 11, 2009 1:51 PM
The Hawking comment is still up in the audio version.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | August 11, 2009 2:10 PM
How far off is this from Sarah Palin's claim that under government insurance, her "baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care" -- when she had Trig while on government insurance as the governor of Alaska?
There's something particularly ludicrous about people whose jobs in the last decade have been with the government, and who seem to have received great health care during that time, telling us that government insurance will KILL US ALL.
Posted by: PG | August 11, 2009 2:12 PM
In the US-based Commonwealth Fund's 2008 healthcare rankings of six top developed nations (Australia, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States):
The United Kingdom ranks top overall - and ranks above the US in all but one measure - yet has the lowest healthcare spend per head of population.
The USA ranks sixth overall - ranking bottom on five of the nine measures along with having the lowest life-expectancy and highest infant mortality rates by far - despite spending more than twice what any other country spends on healthcare (and, at $6,102 vs. $2,546, almost three times the spend in the UK), per head of population.
Go figure why the desperate need to resort to transparent lies in order to defend the indefensible.
Posted by: Mark | August 11, 2009 2:36 PM
Well, they have corrected it, but at least they didn't try and wipe it out entirely, and still mention that the original version implied that Stephen Hawking did not live in the UK.
Though "scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K" seems to be going a little further than merely implying.
Posted by: G.Shelley | August 11, 2009 2:42 PM
PG:
You are most unfair. Sarah, although her athleticism and good looks mask the condition, suffers from LSS (Lyin' Sack'o'shit Syndrome. This disorder often progresses absent any diagnosis or is misdagnosed as ESS (Epic Stupid Syndrome) or CRFSS (Can't Remember Fucking Shit Syndrome--sometimes called Reagean's Dementia). While the condition is treatable in early stages (between the ages of 2 and 5) it progresses rapidly from that point and, while it does not cause gross physical symptoms, it rots the brain very quickly. As cruel as it may sound, Trig, with his somewhat diminshed capacity (if he is a typical victim of Downs Syndrome) will probably surpass his mother in genuine intelligence by the time he is three, at most four, years of age. In terms of emotional development, he has already done so.
Posted by: democommie | August 11, 2009 2:52 PM
Democommie:
I giggled loudly.
Posted by: Coragyps | August 11, 2009 3:07 PM
Ginger Yellow,
Hawking's access to private care does not prove that he has access to private insurance, unless you consider his bank account an insurance provider.
Posted by: Drekab | August 11, 2009 3:11 PM
This kind of thing reminds me of what I once read about a wingnut saying: "English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for immigrants."
Posted by: TheDude | August 11, 2009 3:29 PM
If Hawking doesn't have access to private insurance, then it's only because his severe condition and disability makes him uninsurable. That would be no different in the US.
I had private health insurance through my employer when I lived in the UK -- and had surgery on it, without my paying a penny. (Nice private room and all.) My sister's husband has private health insurance because he owns and runs a business and wants the extra flexibility (time and place) a private medical plan affords to reduce any possible impact on his business.
British private health insurance companies may not rake in the billions their US counterparts do, but there is still plenty of money to be made in that line of work.
Posted by: tacitus | August 11, 2009 4:06 PM
Where do these morons come up with this crap? It's not progressives who think if you can't "contribute" to society you should be tossed out on the streets like so much garbage and left to fend for yourself. It's not we who whine incessantly about our precious tax dollars going to "welfare mothers", people with disabilities, hungry children and other such people. Now they're pretending they're the champions for the needy? Get real!
Posted by: Buffy | August 11, 2009 4:34 PM
democommie @60 - I take great exception of your diagnosis of Ms. Palin. These conditions are not mutually exlusive, I'd say she's both LSS and ESS.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 11, 2009 4:43 PM
As someone living with an incurable chronic condition that is invariably terminal (if not treated), the UK's NHS provides me with timely gold-standard specialist care and drugs amounting to in excess of $30,000 annually.
Because of my care, I lead a normal work and social life and have a normal life expectancy and have never once had to suffer the indignity of being means tested, nor had to wait for bureaucracy to decide that I am poor enough to warrant help.
My fellow sufferers in the United States are uninsurable, mostly can't work and can't get any sort of treatment until the combined pressures of poverty and disease progression conspire to put them at imminent risk of death.
Charity? Hardly - as a direct result of my treatment, I contribute more in taxes than I cost and I am not a burden to others who would otherwise need to care for me.
Which system is really the more humane?
Posted by: Tristran | August 11, 2009 4:51 PM
As a graduate of good old " BSU " I take my hat off to superior artistry. Mr Brayton typifies the BS the Republicans are promoting if you can't dazzle them with you brilliance baffle the with your BS.
Its interesting to hear a quote from a previous Republican and hopefully sends a message to the present Republicans who seem to be lost and wandering in the desert.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. "
Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1954
Yet we can afford to be the policemen for the world and support dictators and despots. We can triple earmarks for unneeded projects. We can do all those things but cannot afford health care reform? I have the answer and its not Republican.
Or is it not invented here syndrome ?
Posted by: Ronald Becker | August 11, 2009 5:05 PM
Sorry Ronald but today's conspiracy addicted RW are of the belief that Eisenhower was a communist conspirator...And that's not a joke they really do think that.
Posted by: theroachman | August 11, 2009 5:23 PM
OK, so they came up with the example of a man who has lived way beyond the time expected of someone with his condition largely using the NHS, who certainly was treated in an NHS hospital recently, and who is basically totally disabled, yet continues to be treated...by the NHS.
Great example of our evil socialist healthcare in action - any more?
BTW - we do have private healthcare here in the UK, its just that 92% of people tend not to bother, and most of those that do are actually treated in NHS hospitals (via their insurance) anyway. As for the governments plans to copy the US model, they seem to basically be crap.
Posted by: MikeB | August 11, 2009 5:29 PM
I work for the NHS, in Ophthalmology. We have to get our cataract patients from initial Gp referral through two operations and follow up appointments within eighteen weeks. And that includes a six week gap between the two ops!
Posted by: Deacon Barry | August 11, 2009 5:53 PM
The US does not play the policeman for the world. All America does is insure that her interests are taken care off.
No Nation EVER did something out of selflessness, that's not how Nations work. Altruism is not something that's high up on their agenda.
Supporting dictators and despots and being the "policeman" are one and the same.
Posted by: Michael | August 11, 2009 6:24 PM
Here is what Professor Hawking has to say:
“I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 11, 2009 6:39 PM
For cases like this, facepalm is insufficient. May I suggest facefist, the combination of covering ones eyes to not see it with the strong repeated impact of the forehead on the table?
Posted by: Mu | August 11, 2009 7:13 PM
democommie, #60 was priceless.
Posted by: Josh | August 11, 2009 7:27 PM
Re: 68
You ever notice that while Fox News conservatives in this country generally really admire Eisenhower, they almost *never* quote him? If a politician were to get up in front a group today and make a statement like that, he'd be vilified as a gutless commie who wants al Qaeda to came to your house an dry hump your dog or something.
Posted by: n | August 11, 2009 7:30 PM
Michael @ #72:
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, wtf are you trying to say?
Posted by: democommie | August 11, 2009 8:16 PM
My 20yo daughter has Turner Syndrome, a chromosome disorder.
She's a FT college student and a competitive athlete. However, her pre-existing conditions will make it difficult for her to get health care unless she restricts her career choices to employer paid insurance.
I can't help but hope that she falls in love with a guy from a country with universal health insurance. She's in New Zealand right now to compete in freestyle snowboarding -- I'll take a Fin or a Swede or a Kiwi --
Posted by: Sherry | August 11, 2009 8:22 PM
They've put up a new version of the essay, with the material about Hawking removed. They did not change the basic conclusion of the piece, though. It reminds of that bit in 1984 where the enemy changes in the midst of a speech, and no one seems to care or even notice.
Posted by: Doug | August 11, 2009 9:38 PM
According to recent news reports on Yahoo! There have been more confrontations at "Town Meetings" on the proposed healthcare bill. One congressman apparently had a swaztika painted on his door. I assume the painting was done by one of the zealots who are led by the people who are insisting that Obama is a nazi. WTF?
Instead of standing around and wringing our hands about it, we need to be showing up--in huge numbers, to support the process and let the thugs that are there to shout down the congressmen (almost exclusively democrats) have a taste of their own poison. I'm not advocating violence. I am saying that all polls indicate that there are massive numbers of americans who are anxious to get some sort of program in play, while the far smaller but obnoxious and threatening crowd of idiots who have been raising all the hell at these meetings are doing everything in their power to dreail a process that they don't even begin to understand. This IS the sort of tactical and strategic action that was carried out by the nazis as they rose to power. When they finally controlled the organs of government, including the military, all such activity ceased and was outlawed as traitorous.
That we should stand by and watch this happen is just utter fucking nonsense.
I really am at the point where when someone starts to tell me about how they're going to resist the Obamasocialization, I have to tell them that they are clueless dupes. I have no problem with doing that; it needs to be done by ALL of us, until this foolishness stops.
Posted by: democommie | August 11, 2009 10:17 PM
Try working around people who actually believe this s&#t. Socialism, to the mind of the average Rush Limbaugh fan, consists of passing any kind of business regulation - by their definition, prohibiting the sale of crack is socialism. Bear that in mind any time these people open their mouths. Sorry, but this would be funny to me, if it weren't for the facts that: a)people actually belive this fact-deficient, self-contradictory garbage; b) that these people wield signifigant influence over the economy, and ; c) they are allowed to breed. Usually within their own 'family stump'.
Posted by: Ben | August 11, 2009 10:39 PM
The offending portion has been removed, and replaced with some bullshit line about "we didn't mean to imply that Stephen Hawking didn't live in the UK" or something like that.
Posted by: Chris | August 11, 2009 10:42 PM
When Prop 8 shut down gay marriage in CA, a FB friend opined:
CA - LA - SF = AL
'Nuff said?
Posted by: lauram | August 12, 2009 12:11 AM
Shorter poor-Right: "I can't afford health insurance and would rather both myself and my children die than have the State help me (unless I'm in the military/government or I'm 65+, then the State should keep its nose out of the programs that the State provides me)."
...
Can you nominate groups for the Darwin Awards?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 12, 2009 6:12 AM
IBD Editor-in-Thief here. We had a minor error in the editorial, implying that Mr. Hawking has been dead for a while, ever since the Kenyan boy Barack Obama flew in from Mombasa to push him out of his wheelchair. In fact, the Kenyan boy was smuggled to the United States before he could accomplish the task, and the British health care system had no money to pay anyone else to do it. The error was inconsequential, but we apologize for it anyway. Please come and see the preview of our future editorials. Thank you.
Posted by: bullfighter | August 12, 2009 10:28 AM
Setting aside the remark which certainly was not the most intelligent in the world it still remains that the people sponsoring the health care bill and the president will not place their families on the plan and get rid of the costly aristocrat plan they now have. If they as they claim have a plan that is good for all the people then why would it not be good for them? The warning bells are going off all over as far as I am concerned. I personally will not support any plan that our government officials are not a part of in the same way ordinary citizens are.
Posted by: Ray T | August 12, 2009 12:25 PM
May I gently take issue with the use of the term "bats**t" as a disparagement; bats are intelligent, beautiful, helpful and highly sensitive members of our community, and their gu**o is a valued natural resource. I suggest "GOPs**t" as a more accurate description of neocon effluence.
Posted by: jeroboam bramblejam | August 12, 2009 12:25 PM
Ray T, the government officials would be part of the plan in the same way ordinary citizens are. Ordinary citizens can stick with their current health provider if they prefer it to the new federal plan too.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 12, 2009 12:41 PM
The rhetoric being spewed from the right with regards to health care reform really does anger me. My life was saved by the NHS, I was kept in for two weeks, was fed, cared for by brilliant nurses and doctors had numerous tests and procedures then two operations. It cost me nothing. Not a penny. In America that would have cost me tens of thousands. People can have private cover here too, if they can afford it and that seems to be the plan of the Obama initiative. I honestly can not understand how people believe that health care for all is a bad idea.
Posted by: Yeti | August 12, 2009 1:31 PM
I think Americans have to realize that greed and only thinking about Number one is never going to work.
Just look what greed has done to the world.
I live in UK and am quite happy (along with millions of others in UK) paying in to the NHS hoping that they will never have to use it.
We can look past our own needs and rather have a system in place that looks after everybody, no matter how rich or how poor.
Posted by: P Miller | August 12, 2009 3:33 PM
If they as they claim have a plan that is good for all the people then why would it not be good for them? The warning bells are going off all over as far as I am concerned. I personally will not support any plan that our government officials are not a part of in the same way ordinary citizens are.
So if Obama proposed legislation giving all Americans exactly the same coverage the President gets, under exactly the same insurer, you'd support it wholeheartedly?
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 12, 2009 3:43 PM
Ray T - Apparently if the President (or any other politician for that matter) proposed a bill to build a road through your home town, you would only support the proposal if he drove over it himself every day on his way to the White-house (or Senate, or Congress, or whatever)?
Sorry, that's nuts.
Sometimes politicians vote for bills that don't directly affect them, or their families. Sometimes, they vote for a bill (or not) on the basis of doing what's best for the community at large.
Strangely, not everyone is a narcissist; some recognise there are other people in the world, besides themselves - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 12, 2009 4:13 PM
Well, Ray, here's the wicked pissah part of it. If Obama and other folks have great private insurance--THEY STILL GET TO PAY FOR THE REST OF THE WANKERS WHO DON'T. Isn't that a good thing? I mean the president having to pay taxes for something he doesn't benefit from. Jeez that's like a brillian mathemetician in oh, say, England, who is basically unable to do anything except think and yet he has to pay income taxes that help to build roads and public buildings and parks, wow, the list goes on.
Posted by: democommie | August 12, 2009 8:53 PM
Who's the dumbass? It says IN UK nothing about him not being FROM UK.
Posted by: Patrick Britton | August 15, 2009 12:28 PM
The dumbass would be you, Patrick (whose email is admin@thedailyconservative.net, amusingly). Hawking is from from the UK and in the UK, and has been his entire life.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 15, 2009 12:57 PM
I'm a dual US/UK citizen. I grew up in the US. I currently live in the UK. I have family on both sides of the Pond, including elderly infirm family. I've accessed advanced, non-basic medical care on both sides of the Pond myself. So I can speak from personal experience. And, how wonderful, there is objective data which backs me up, too.
The NHS has its problems; waiting lists for some tests or services is one of them, in areas where there is a lack of appropriate specialists. That's our "postcode lottery", and yes, we tend to rail about it a bit.
Stack that against the following:
My parents (in the US) had Medicare, secondary insurance that my father retained from the job he retired from, and tertiary insurance against any disability aids that they might end up needing, paid for out of pocket.
My grandfather (in the UK) simply paid payroll taxes all his life.
When my father started having strokes, average paperwork to get coverage for hospital, physio, and mobility aids was at minimum 4 hours/week, and on one occasion took three members of the family two full days to wade through it all. And the parents still ended up paying many thousands of $$ out of pocket for some of it.
When my grandfather started falling and getting unsteady on his feet, his GP sent a letter to various appropriate services, and he had people turn up to install railings around his house two weeks later. When my British mother-in-law started having strokes, hospital provision and follow-up was immediate, involved no extra cost, and was arranged with a high degree of efficiency by the NHS itself. We had no paperwork, other than the responsibility of not losing the letters which told her when her appointments were.
When my grandfather was diagnosed with cancer, he simply went to hospital, and further treatment was carried out in clinic twice a month (anti-angiogenesis injections to control inoperable prostate cancer). This carried him through over 6 years.
At the end, he unfortunately had to wait almost three weeks to get a room in the appropriate hospice -- that was a problem. But it was only a matter of waiting.
Paperwork: nil. Extra money: nil. Having to fight to get him treatment: nil.
In the US, my brother and sis-in-law are uninsured -- as small business owners, they would have to pay for their own insurance entirely out-of-pocket, and because sis-in-law has asthma and an enlarged heart from steroid inhaler use, the premiums would cost them over 2/3 of their monthly income.
When my brother was in a serious car accident which left him with brain damage and badly needing physio, it was a matter of "too bad, so sad, you can only have it if you pay." The cost was beyond their means; they did without.
That would not have happened in the UK. Here he'd simply have been given physio in hospital, for as long as he'd needed it. And the physio available here is good, too; just last year I saw a co-worker who had been in a serious accident go through it.
In the US a friend of mine who lives in south Florida was turfed out of an ER with an unset broken leg, not because she was uninsured even (she has insurance), but simply because ER was too busy and she wasn't going to get seen, period. Here, the newspapers would have been all over that, in a heartbeat. There -- too common, apparently.
Here in the UK, someone waiting 12 hours in an emergency room without getting seen ends up in the newspapers and sparks national outrage. In the US? That seems to be something that happens all the freakin' time, and doesn't get reported on.
Here in the UK, there are issues about cutting edge cancer treatment drugs or cutting edge drugs for Alszheimer's not being available on the NHS, although you can get them if you pay privately or have private insurance. Basic treatments are always available, just not necessarily the newest and most expensive stuff, even though it might be the best.
Contrast this to the stories I've seen all over the net, of people in the US having to fight their insurance companies to get needles for their kid's Type I diabetes, having to fight to get function tests for heart disease in high-risk situations, having to fight to get basic cancer treatments -- another person I knew who was diagnosed with breast cancer had her insurance company decline coverage entirely -- she had been with them just less than a year, and although she had just been diagnosed, their argument was that the cancer itself had to have *started* over a year ago, and was thus a "pre-existing condition" which they were not obliged to cover.
I read about people buying vet supplies online to treat themselves for chronic conditions, because that's the cheapest option. I have a friend who is STILL paying off hospital charges from 1989, when she had a childbirth go disastrously wrong, and didn't have insurance.
I could go on.
Then we get to the arcana, like the fact that insured people in the US are paying for the uninsured anyway, in the form of (rather high) hidden charges on both their premiums and their hospital bills which go towards treatment of catastrophic injury of the uninsured; and the fact that the US pays societally for all the lost productivity and people who end up on welfare because healthcare issues quite literally bankrupt them (losing small businesses, having to sell houses in order to pay for care, etc.). But because that is not as obvious as an open tax, it seems that the vast majority of the population remains unaware of the extent of it, and there is no mechanism to make it more open, either.
Overall, all I can say is that although the NHS has its problems, it is infinitely less broken than the American system.
But the protest in America has a long history -- it isn't just driven by GOP lies right now. Look up the Hill-Burton Act of 1946, and the protest against it, and how poorly it has traditionally been implemented. Look at the AMA propaganda against the evils of socialized medicine, from the late 1940s through the mid- to late 50s. And note that a lot of it plays off the ideas that:
Healthcare is not a "right", it is a business and a service which people are privileged to buy
and
Your money shouldn't be used to care for lollygagging, undeserving others!
Contrast this to the European and British attitudes that healthcare is not supposed to be primarily a profit-making business so much as it is an infrastructure issue. sure, there are profit-making businesses involved in its provision, much like there is in road-building or provision of schools - but much like roads and education, the basic thing is something which all citizens have a right to access and which benefits society as a whole to provision. And it works like public investment in infrastructure in terms of monetary investment, too -- some people will get out more than they put in, some people will put in more than they get out, but on the whole, it balances out and it is there when you need it for your own investment.
Which last is, I'd like to point out, supposed to be the philosophy behind paying insurance, too.
The idea that we pay over the odds in taxes for all this, in the UK or in any EU country, is similarly counter to reality. I've personally contrasted what I pay in taxes in the US, plus insurance fees, deductibles and co-pays, vs. what I pay in the few open and obvious taxes here -- and monetarily, I'm better off here. When insurance costs are factored in, even with VAT in my life I pay less here.
So frankly, I find the American attitude insane. But 60 years of propaganda and a national mythology of the rugged individualist has done its work.
Hokay, rant over for now. Sorry, I just had to.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | August 15, 2009 1:50 PM
Further to Prof Hawking's private nurses. Lots of severely disabled people are cared for at home with NHS provided nursing assistance. A private nurse would be nice, but not strictly necessary.
Posted by: bucketoftea | August 30, 2009 8:24 AM