Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Stephen Hawking responds to the Investor's Business Daily's idiotic comment that he would never have survived under Britain's National Health Service medical care:
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told us. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
And there is now an amusing disclaimer at the top of the IBD's editorial:
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.
Swing and a miss. The mistake was not in implying that he didn't live in the UK; the mistake was in claiming that if he did live in the UK,as he does, he would have been euthanized long ago, as he hasn't. At least own up to making such a boneheaded statement.
Politics
Comments
I doubt they understand anything else Hawking has ever said or done, either.
Shows the danger of using actual, living people as your "symbolic" example. Actual living people can call bullshit. They should have said "Isaac Newton would have died from the plague under the National Health Service." Hell, who could refute that?
All they need is a minor adjustment in their spin, that's all. They'll have a new editorial up later this week, and all will be forgiven.
Posted by: threetorches | August 12, 2009 9:39 AM
The real irony, of course, is that thousands and thousands of people do actually die in the U.S. because they have no access to quality healthcare.
Many are literally turned away at the door - shunted from E.R.s to die in an ambulance en route to another hospital which would have refused to treat them as well.
Or they die because they simply can't afford to pay out of pocket for a preexisting condition, perhaps not wanting to bankrupt their spouse out of their home.
And so, in the service of profit, douchebags like the authors of the IBD editorial condemn thousands more to unnecessary death by their deliberately dishonest diatribes against health care reform.
These are the real murderers in this freakshow.
Posted by: gingerbaker | August 12, 2009 9:47 AM
This reminds me of the joke about the usual three people going to heaven.
The first one is a country doc. St. Peter looks at his ledger and says, "Welcome home, doc, you brought a lot of babies into the world and eased a lot of pain and suffering."
The second applicant is a priest. St. Peter says. "I was never a fan of those Golden Parachute contracts but we have a spot for you, right next to the YMCA where all of the fundie preachers live."
The last in line, a sleek, well coiffed and immaculately dressed gent, smiles his best "aw shucks" smile. St. Peter grins back and says, "Hey, you ran a very profitable HMO for years. Welcome. Oh, by the way, you can only stay 3 days."
Posted by: democommie | August 12, 2009 10:10 AM
How do we really know Hawking is a Brittish citizen? Has anyone seen his long form Birth-Certificate?
That will be the IBD future defence for thier stupidity
Posted by: theroachman | August 12, 2009 10:16 AM
Next IBD's health care protestors will say that we can't be sure that was really Stephen Hawking because he didn't say it in his own voice.
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | August 12, 2009 10:32 AM
The IBD's "correction" actually reduced my opinion of them.
It’s an error, but at least within the realm of the reasonable, to think that the British health care system might do a relatively poor job of caring for the severely handicapped.
It is a much, much worse error to start reasoning by example, find out that the example proves the opposite of what you thought it did, and respond by throwing out the example and keeping your original conclusion.
Posted by: eric | August 12, 2009 10:34 AM
IBD Editor-in-Chief 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 10:54 AM
Maybe Hawking and the NHS should sue IBD for libel...from England of course, given the libel laws there.
Posted by: mathyoo | August 12, 2009 11:29 AM
It's both amusing and sad the extent to which ideologues will go to shield themselves from facts. Here is libh8er at freerepublic.com responding to Paul Rowen's comments:
Ignoring, of course, that Hawking was young and not yet famous when his disease first presented. The snippet above is from this thread, one likely soon to be removed from the site:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2314201/posts
Posted by: Russell | August 12, 2009 11:40 AM
"Maybe Hawking and the NHS should sue IBD for libel...from England of course, given the libel laws there."
Sorry to get pointlessly pedantic on a throwaway line, but there's nothing in the IBD article that defames Hawking and the NHS legally cannot be defamed.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 12, 2009 11:41 AM
GY: Sure it defames Hawking - it implies he's American! :-P
Posted by: bullfighter | August 12, 2009 12:10 PM
Fuck a duck, man. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I first saw Hawking responded to that bird-brained editorial. He really cooked their goose. Just goes to show how lots of those right-wing cuckoos really don't know a hawk from a handsaw. But it was great seeing their chickens come home to roost. I hope this becomes an albatross around their neck, exposing how these proud peacocks are really just lame ducks trying to feather their own nest off the broken healthcare industry. I don't want to count my chickens before they've hatched. But if these guys don't get their ducks in a row, and fast, they're dead dodos, because what they've been serving up so far is really for the birds.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 12, 2009 12:11 PM
Abby - I wouldn't wanna be those turkeys come Thanksgiving! :) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 12, 2009 12:16 PM
Re: #12
I agree. Whatta buncha turkeys!
Posted by: Blondin | August 12, 2009 1:09 PM
Re 4
If you want Professor Hawking's birth certificate an official copy can be obtained from the public records office for a fee of £7. This applies to anybody.
Posted by: Brett Dunbar | August 12, 2009 1:12 PM
gingerbaker: Isn't it illegal for hospitals in the U.S. to refuse emergency care?
Posted by: mjpalmer | August 12, 2009 1:23 PM
It is illegal for emergency rooms to refuse to perform urgent treatment. However, the law says they only have to stabilize your condition. After that, it's hit the bricks if you can't pay.
Posted by: Robert Faber | August 12, 2009 1:26 PM
Brett Dunbar @ # 15 - yabbut that so-called "official copy" must be for somebody else, because it doesn't say "Professor Stephen Hawking". Save your14 bucks (or whatever it is in Gawd's money these days)!
In conclusion, phhhtt!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 12, 2009 1:29 PM
Robert Faber:
In that case your "emergency contact" should be a reporter from some newspaper who can tell them he will pick you up as soon as he's filed the story about them tossing you into the street.
Posted by: democommie | August 12, 2009 1:32 PM
I always find it odd when the same people who complain that a public option will put a price tag on human life turn around and announce that the free market will sort this all out.
Posted by: rob | August 12, 2009 1:42 PM
And that's where the epistemological madness starts.
Posted by: jpf | August 12, 2009 1:42 PM
Shows the danger of using actual, living people as your "symbolic" example.
These louts only care about people to the extent that they obediently serve as props in their heroic fantasies, the instant they show signs of having feelings of their own they fly off into a frenzied rage. Cf. the 9/11 widows, beloved martyrs who suddenly became despicable "harpies" when they expressed support for the Democrats, the Tillman family, who went from being heroes of the nation to pitiable infidels when they asked a few too many questions about Pat's death, and let's not forget Rush's classy remarks about Michael J. Fox's disability when he had the temerity to appear in a Democratic campaign ad.
Hawking is fortunate to be a bit too reputable for them to smear in their presently weakened political state.
Posted by: Portmanteau | August 12, 2009 1:43 PM
And I had to pay for my own healthcare when earning well below average wage as well as paying taxes for NHS care of those earning more than I was. I could not afford to take time off to wait for NHS care, as I was self-employed. So why should I, living in a shared house, eating as cheaply as I could, have to pay for the healthcare of people earning two or three times my pay, living in luxury, when I could not even take advantage of that healthcare myself?
Single-payer healthcare (which is where Obama is taking you, as he has admitted in the past however he denies it now) is not the way to go. It has never worked, anywhere.
Hawking is an old leftie, always has been. He even supported the disgraceful slimeball Blair. His abilities in applied mathematics and theoretical physics do not lend him political credibility. The care for MND sufferers in America is at least as good in the USA as it is in the UK, so what he says is utter rot.
Posted by: Richard | August 12, 2009 2:07 PM
No.
Not if the ER is 'full'. And it is not unknown to have the ER 'full' even if there are beds available in other departments for patients who might be responsibly triaged there. Especially if it is an indigent patient in the ambulance.
I have read horror stories of patients in big cities carted from one hospital after another and dying after the fifth rejection. Death by bureaucracy.
Hospitals can not afford to have a huge imbalance in their well paying/poorly paying ratios for too long. Hence, as I said, "thousands and thousands of people do actually die in the U.S. because they have no access to quality healthcare". I believe this also shows up in macro statistics of outcomes versus patient income. And the sad part is that the ER situation is only one of the ways the system fails to provide even basic services to many.
Posted by: gingerbaker | August 12, 2009 2:21 PM
That is an outright lie, you selfish snot.
In case you missed the memo, the U.S. is way down the list of successful healthcare systems, and most of the competitors out there are essentially if not wholly single payer.
Posted by: gingerbaker | August 12, 2009 2:27 PM
"Hawking is an old leftie, always has been. He even supported the disgraceful slimeball Blair. His abilities in applied mathematics and theoretical physics do not lend him political credibility."
Oh for Christ's sake. So his political leanings preclude him from being able to speak from personal experience? Ugh, some days it's all I can do to stop myself from swirling an ice pick around the back of my eyeball just to ease the pain.
Posted by: jes b | August 12, 2009 2:31 PM
Single-payer healthcare (which is where Obama is taking you, as he has admitted in the past however he denies it now) is not the way to go. It has never worked, anywhere.
Correction: It does work, everywhere but here.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 12, 2009 2:38 PM
Gingerbaker, come on now. Even if an E.R. is full, they'll at least give you a place to lay down and wait your turn.
Case in point: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/01/waiting.room.death/index.html?eref=rss_topstories#cnnSTCText]
US's superior health care at its finest hour
Posted by: jes b | August 12, 2009 2:39 PM
Abby Normal: So much bird metaphor in one post is just plain fowl.
Posted by: Julian | August 12, 2009 2:53 PM
[In before the birfers, Obama-gonna-euthanize-muh-Granny-ists, and other conspiracy theorists...]
2009 Medal of Freedom Recipients:
Ah ha! The conspiracy thickens! Hawking, who was really born, has lived, and received all his medical care in the US (why else give him an American medal?), is being repaid for pretending to be a British citizen to prop up Obamacare's absurd, ridiculous, preposterous claim that its whole reason for existence isn't to murder the weak and elderly. Blah blah Nazi, blah blah Socialism, blah blah New World Order, etc.
Posted by: jpf | August 12, 2009 3:12 PM
Just having a bit of fun Julian. Don't get your feathers in a bunch. :-p
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 12, 2009 3:26 PM
Saw one of the participants in a congressman's townhall talking about his experience with health care. He lost his job and health insurance while his wife was pregnant. She was able to go on Medicaid (she had to change doctors) for her pregnancy. But he still didn't have health insurance, so he went to ER for a sore throat. They told him he had laryngitis. So he went back, still uninsured. Same story. Then he got a job and health insurance and went to doctor for throat - did tests (MRI or CTScan) found he had a growth on his larynx that would have closed off his windpipe. Said he was lucky. Difference in care for uninsured and insured.
Posted by: BC | August 12, 2009 3:47 PM
Richard:
Single payer never works. You had to wait forever for surgery or other medical care. Hawking is an 'old leftie'. Why do I get the feeling you're a fucking troll? Wait, wait, don't tell me! Because you a troll!!
Posted by: democommie | August 12, 2009 3:53 PM
Read it and weep: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=
Posted by: Daniel | August 12, 2009 4:10 PM
This IBD editorial story is picking up steam. Good.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/correcting-the-correction.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/twitter_stephen_hawking_and_br.html
Posted by: n | August 12, 2009 4:11 PM
My husband made a good comment; the idiot who wrote the article probably heard Hawkings "speak" and noticed he "spoke" with an American accent...although it is an amazingly computerized sounding American accent, funny that.
Posted by: Julie | August 12, 2009 4:19 PM
Yes, but that is a complementary service, provided for all valued customers, and has no medical billing code. ;D
Posted by: gingerbaker | August 12, 2009 4:26 PM
@Richard:
No, you chose to do so. You had an option (be treated for free for a non-life-threatening problem) that many USAans do not have; indeed. given that back pain is generally a chronic condition, you may well find that no USAan insurer would have covered you, however much you protested it was a new condition. How long would it have taken simply to get approval from the insurers?
And then there's the money paid - you paid all of £500. Do you know what the deductible and co-pay together would have been on the treatment you received. Indeed, given your claim that you earn substantially less than average earnings, could you have afforded health insurance if that was the prevailing method of provision?
Finally, you whinge at paying VAT on the cost of your care. That seems to give the lie to your story. "Services intended principally to protect (including maintain or restore) the health of individuals" are VAT-exempt.
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 12, 2009 4:38 PM
Why do you "liberals" think that comprehensive health-care should be paid for out of my pocket? And your pocket as well, and our children and grandchildren?
Posted by: Dude | August 12, 2009 4:54 PM
Re: 34
The article states:
"Canada has one-third fewer doctors per capita than the OECD average. “The doctor shortage is a direct result of government rationing, since provinces intervened to restrict class sizes in major Canadian medical schools in the 1990s,” Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute scholar, told the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee on June 24. Some towns address the doctor dearth with lotteries in which citizens compete for rare medical appointments."
Yet, when one goes to the OECD website and downloads
http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoad/OECDHealthData_FrequentlyRequestedData.xls
& opens the document and navigates to the "practicing physicians" tab, the most recent data (2007) says Canada has 2.18 physicians/1000 and the U.S. has 2.43. That's 10.3% less. So does that mean that the U.S. is also below the OECD average in doctors per capita (by say 26%)? Why does the U.K., Germany, Austria, Belgium, France all beat the U.S. on this metric?
Also, I grew up in a remote (500 miles from the nearest major center) small (10-15K, depending on the price of ore) Canadian city. My Brother still lives in a similar northern town with his wife and 5 kids, and this is the first time I have ever heard of a lottery for medical care. I call bullshit an that.
Posted by: n | August 12, 2009 4:55 PM
@Robin Levett
OK, so technically I had the option, but that is pure sophistry.
Had I chosen that option I would have lost more in pay than I ended up paying in healthcare, even if I had taken social welfare payments (on that time scale I would not have been entitled to housing benefits, only basic incapacity benefits). Would you take two months on benefits to save £500?
"...all of £500..."
All very well to say for those that can afford it. At the time I struggled to do so.
"...given your claim that you earn substantially less than average earnings, could you have afforded health insurance if that was the prevailing method of provision?"
If I had not been paying taxes for the NHS provision I was not able to wait to take advantage of then I would either have been able to afford health insurance or I would have been able to afford the treatment! The issue is not paying for the treatment, it is paying for my treatment then paying for other people's as well, in a fund I was not allowed to access.
Of course had I waited for NHS treatment not only would I have lost out, due to not being paid, but the companies I worked for would have lost business, the clients lost benefit of my skills and most ridiculous of all the government would have lost tax worth more than the £500! The work I was contracting to do self-employed paid far more to the government in VAT, duty, income tax for me and support workers/management and taxes laid upon the company I worked for than it did to me.
That is why the NHS is so bad. It is a lose-lose-lose situation.
I am probably mistaken about being charged 17.5% for the whole bill; alongside the direct care costs already mentioned I required a fitness assessment for my job (no, that did not come into the £500 as I am not sure it would have been available on the NHS), which might be the source of the VAT. I simply remember there was an item labelled VAT on the invoice, which displeased me somewhat, although I paid little attention to anything but the final figure.
Posted by: Richard | August 12, 2009 5:10 PM
@Dude #39
The short answer, for the same reasons I think education, police, fire departments, and the military should. It would protect American lives, improves the quality of those lives, supports our position as an econimic leader, and provide a structure for future growth. There are things that the free market handles very well. But healthcare doesn't seem to be one of them.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 12, 2009 5:11 PM
@ Julie #36
Interesting side note: They now have voice synthesizers that can use regional accents, but they were developed after Hawking had already been using his for many years, and he opted not to switch.
@ Dude #39
Because we'll all benefit from it? Everybody pays into it through taxes, and then we can, whenever we need to take advantage of it without having to pay out of pocket. Sort of like how you pay taxes that go to the fire department even though you may never need their services. But when you do, and they save your house, you're damn thankful that you did.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | August 12, 2009 5:50 PM
@Richard: Sorry to hear the NHS is not a perfect system for you, but the 65 million of us that it has done a good job for massivly outweigh your bad experiences. Frankly your agument against it is out there with the "I have job so why do I pay to help the unemployed with my taxes" and "Why do my taxes pay for schools when I have no kids" arguments.
Posted by: Ramel | August 12, 2009 5:55 PM
@Richard:
Are you kidding? Show your workings; specifically, show that the difference between the tax you'd pay at US and UK tax rates is the same as or more than the health insurance you'd pay - and that the deductible and copay would have worked out less than £500 (I am, in your favour, taking U3k and not US prices for treatment).
Bear in mind that (2008-9) on income of £20k in the UK your income tax and NICs between them would have been around £4k - assuming no deductions beyond personal allowance. On $30k, federal income tax would have been around $3k, so far as I can make out - but New York State taxes, for example, would amount to another 12% rate.
"Not allowed"? Even on your story, that is simply untrue. You chose not to access it; it was there with - on your account - a 9 week wait.
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 12, 2009 6:40 PM
Hawking:
Richard:
But I would guess that Hawking's continued survival of a degenerative disease might give him a little credibility on what has helped him to survive that disease, regardless of his politics. Idiot.
Posted by: Chayanov | August 12, 2009 7:14 PM
What relevance does US tax rate have? I am talking about the difference between the tax rate I paid, and what it would have been without the NHS. That is far more indicative of the extra that will be paid in the USA, or the amount being taken off me from which I derive no benefit whatsoever (even today, as I still cannot afford to be idle).
As far as I can work out the proportion of my income tax alone that that year going to the NHS was £408 (the tax I paid that year, divided by government spending multiplied by the NHS budget), in fact not much less than the money I shelled out. If you then include all the other taxes I paid or contributed (VAT, duty, corporation taxes on the profits I made for my employers) the I paid far more personally to the NHS in that one year than the cost of the private treatment. In one field of my self-employment the government earned more in indirect taxes than I earned gross.
So if you just include all that I paid in taxes (income, VAT and duties) the NHS I reckon cleared over £600 (I am being really conservative there). If you include the rest of the tax I generated you can probably double that. In one year. I had been paying tax for a few years, including one year when I earned nothing at all, but was taking a vocational training course the government saw fit to charge VAT for.
I was not allowed to access the treatment I required. I needed treatment that could be described as immediate care for an injured back. That was not available to me under the NHS. It was available to me privately. The timescale was a critical factor in my needs (as it often is, for various reasons). Therefore I was not allowed to access the treatment I needed! It really isn't hard to understand if you understand the concept of individual freedom.
Posted by: Richard | August 12, 2009 7:29 PM
Chayanov
What helped Hawking survive the disease was the healthcare, not the system that paid for it. Who is the idiot?
Ramel
No, my argument would be the same as "I don't have a job, and can't claim unemployment benefit. Why did I still have to pay for unemployed people?". The difference being I needed the service and was not able to access it despite paying. Your story has me not needing the service, so utterly misses the entire point.
Oh, and there are not 65 million people in the country. There are about 60 million, not all of whom are happy with the NHS. The experience of those happy with the NHS is a great argument for them to continue paying for it themselves, which they are welcome to do. I will not do anything to restrict their choice. It is not a good argument for forcing me against my will to pay for something I can never use.
Sean Michael
The fire service comes when you need them. The NHS does not.
Posted by: Richard | August 12, 2009 7:39 PM
Ummm the system is what provided the healthcare. So I guess it's still you.
Posted by: Chayanov | August 12, 2009 7:41 PM
Having read "Richard"s several rants I still don't understand what his issue is or was. Was the service he needed just not available under NHS? or was he somehow the only person in the UK not allowed to use the NHS (after having all by himself paid for the whole service, apparently)? All I know is when I was on assignment in the UK, I had no difficulty getting medical services under the NHS when I needed them, and promptly too; and No I didn't have to pay anything either!! seemed to me like a system we could use here in the USA!
Posted by: sailor1031 | August 12, 2009 8:09 PM
I'm beginning to think that Richard is one of the "Dancing Wi Ning Masters".
It sounds like you just don't like socialism, Richard. Move to a country that doesn't have any. Write if you're still alive in six months.
Posted by: democommie | August 12, 2009 8:26 PM
Richard sez:
Other people sez:
Hmm....
Clearly the NHS doesn't work then!
Posted by: Skemono | August 12, 2009 8:32 PM
@ Dude #39
What's with the scare quotes around the word liberal? You think health reform is being advocated by people posing as liberals really aren't? If so, then what are they if not liberals?
To answer your question; authentic heath insurance reform that includes a public option has proven to do the following in countries that reformed their health care soon after WWII:
It is a producer-centric approach to economic policy, i.e., it promotes exports by reducing a major cost burden to employers (who pay about 11 - 15% in wages just for the insurance, a rate which is both increasing and requires ever increasing talent and manpower in Human Resources departments to administrate ever-increasing complex policies). Net exporters own other countries' asses, not have their ass owned.
It encourages global companies to locate businesses where they don't have to administrate ever-increasing employer-insurance programs whose complexities are increasing, including rationing. Typically the higher tax rates these companies pay are net savings relative to the cost of insurance premiums alone, not including administration costs. The trade-off is 11 - 15% for employer insurance relative to wages vs. 6 - 8% increased taxes. Most employers can automate payment of the taxes, not so with admin of insurance policies.
It increases worker productivity, which in turn increases global competiveness.
It creates increased liquidity in the job market. Employees can more easily quit and become entrepenuers or move to smaller companies with more growth potential but without the cash flow that allows employer health insurance. A good example would people in the auto industry would have been more inclined to go to start-ups with new car tech products like electric cars 10 years ago.
It reduces health care costs relative to GDP from our 17% to 6% - 11% while providing near universal coverage (plus 88%).
Given the fact that all other industrialized and developed countries have far superior methods of paying for health care with the economic advantages I listed above, we know what the economically prudent move is. The question really is, do the Democrats have the balls and leadership required to make the move and how insane will the GOP get over the fact their policies have been proven a disaster when in power and yet they can't help themselves in desiring to sell the American people the same ol' shit. Who do you want managing economic reform? McCain/Palin or Obama?
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 12, 2009 8:41 PM
In the USA that depends. The quality of your care depends on what the
end-of-life committeeinsurance company has to say about whether you deserve to live or not. Or does that rhetoric work when it's the government doing the rationing?More interestingly, would you, as somebody who was scraping to pay for food, have been able to afford care for something like NMD if you were paying out of pocket for it? Better yet, would your £600, taken to a private insurance scheme like the one in the US, have gotten you insurance that would have taken care of you had you been diagnosed with NMD? Your complaint seems to be that you have an insurance system that handles catastrophic and expensive illnesses well but puts a lower priority on less serious cases.
Basically, if somebody told me that I could shell out less than $1,000 per year and get a quality insurance plan with the caveat that I may wait a few weeks to be treated for less serious issues, I'd be pretty pleased. All insurance schemes have edge cases, but if you want to play, "My system's edge cases are worse than yours," I'm happy to compare. I'll even handicap the battle by not using any stories from the 15% or so who don't have any insurance at all. Most of my system's sob stories end with, "And he couldn't get care at all, no matter how long he was willing to wait. So he died."
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | August 12, 2009 9:19 PM
I like the way you create a argument against my first example and completly disregard the second: I have no kids and was privately educated yet my taxes pay for schools, I am paying for a sevice that is of no use to me yet I do not argue for the abolishion of state run schools. The reason being that having a system of education that every one can access is of significant beifit to society.
And I miss-estimated the population of the Uk? Big deal, how does that actually invalidate my point? And "The fire service comes when you need them. The NHS does not."? You ever get hit by a bus remember you said that.
Posted by: Ramel | August 12, 2009 9:34 PM
This sort of "optimism" surprises and alarms me - do you actually think that the Republicans are losing the battle on this issue, with Obama's approval ratings plummeting as fast as they have been in recent months, particularly with regards to his handling of the issue of health care reform? If he can't even get his own party's congresspeople on board following that landslide election last year, what hope is there that any reform will EVER get done?
I foresee absolutely nothing getting done on the healthcare issue, which may weaken the Obama presidency considerably and lead to large Republican gains in 2010 - unless the economy gains some significant ground between now and then.
All this talk of the demise of the Republicans strikes me as wishful thinking. Yes, their insanity, stupidity, and ignorance are downright scary, but if you think all that is somehow going to prevent them from winning elections, you must have a much higher opinion of the American electorate than I do.
Posted by: peter | August 12, 2009 9:35 PM
What helped Hawking survive the disease was the healthcare, not the system that paid for it. Who is the idiot?
You are, for thinking you can make up a distinction without a difference to salvage an argument that's been discredited by Hawking's stated experience.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 12, 2009 9:40 PM
I doubt either IBD or their readers are going to bother with anything as trivial as 'facts.'
Posted by: MTiffany | August 12, 2009 9:47 PM
It's a conspiracy! Hawking was actually born in Kenya. See the proof here!
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | August 12, 2009 10:11 PM
Ramel:
""The fire service comes when you need them. The NHS does not."? You ever get hit by a bus remember you said that."
Well, maybe after the bus runs him over, it will flip on its side, rupturing its fuel tank. Then the burning petrol will engulf Richard and VOILA! the fire service will put him out, as if they were the NHS!
Posted by: democommie | August 12, 2009 11:27 PM
To answer your question; authentic heath insurance reform that includes a public option has proven to do the following in countries that reformed their health care soon after WWII:
I don't disagree with the rest of your argument, but reform in most industrialized countries did not mean a public option "on the side" as envisioned in the US. Most of the systems have either national public insurance for everyone (sometimes supplemented with private insurance), or very tightly regulated mandatory private insurance. It's not certain that a public 'option' would have the same effect.
Posted by: windy | August 12, 2009 11:36 PM
That may be true. But you try writing a post comprised almost entirely of avian related idioms and see how nuanced you can be. [flips the bird] ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 13, 2009 12:08 AM
Posted by: llewelly | August 13, 2009 12:37 AM
"Shows the danger of using actual, living people as your "symbolic" example."
Apropos of nothing, isn't it great how it's ok to like Michael Jackson's music again? He did some really great stuff.
"And I had to pay for my own healthcare when earning well below average wage as well as paying taxes for NHS care of those earning more than I was."
Eeeh! We 'ad to work 14 hour a day down 't mine for tuppence a month, and when we got 'ome, our dad would beat us with boken bottle - if we were lucky!
People that complain about waiting lists in healthcare are usually complaining about having to stand in line behind poor and/or black/brown people. Was your condition life threatening? No. It's that simple.
Posted by: Paul Murray | August 13, 2009 2:17 AM
My partner works for the NHS ambulance service as a dispatcher and as an emergency medical technician (spends 50% in control, 50% on the road).
I keep a track of the cases attended (I'm a volunteer ambulance crew), and the vast majority don't need an ambulance, but the NHS still attend.
I can also echo Professor Hawkings point: without the NHS I'd be dead. I have a genetic immune condition which means I need regular injections of replacement antibodies and have to respond very fast if I get an infection. I would simply not be able to afford treatment - and would therefore be at high risk of a fatal infection - without the NHS, and I know from friends in the USA with the same condition how difficult it is for them.
BTW, you might also want to look at Twitter to see how outraged the UK are at the misrepresentation of the NHS by the right wing in the USA http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23welovethenhs (#welovethenhs)
Posted by: David Waldock | August 13, 2009 2:46 AM
@Richard:
To sustain your comparison, your putative health insurance cover needs to cover emergency medicine etc.
More later.
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 13, 2009 4:01 AM
Richard - as a fellow UK taxpayer, I'd just like to say: shut the hell up.
Your embarrassing the rest of us, and you've certainly embarrassed yourself.
'I have an odd take on things' - too fucking right.
Posted by: MikeB | August 13, 2009 5:27 AM
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 13, 2009 7:07 AM
Hmm; so the tax rate you paid under NHS and the tax rate you think you would have paid without the NHS is more indicative of the tax rate Union citizens pay without a national health system than the actually tax rate we pay now without a health care system? I wonder if you realize how ass-backwards that is Richard.
Beyond this however, you're ignoring the fundamental argument of the nationalization wing of the health care reform movement. The U.S. has a 20-30% tax rate for individuals who are taxable, that is to say, above the poverty line, excluding of course the super rich who's taxes, while higher, aren't taxed at the 50-60% level they used to be after WW2. The U.S. tax system, with this 20-30% tax rate for most citizens, already produces somewhere in the realm of $13 trillion, that's a t not a b, a year. The gist of this is we have more than enough money to pay for health-care as is, without tax increases; we simply need to ration governments spending in other sectors, for instance, our bloated military. As Eisenhower was not-so-famously fond of pointing out every bomb is a school; every bomber a modernly equipped high-capacity hospital; every tank, a library. We pour the vast majority of our yearly tax revenues into paying for things to kill other people with which we would rarely use if not for the fact that our joint-chiefs and executive feel them must stick their nose in every internal issue the world over to justify the ever-ballooning expense, and what's more, this very same inflated military budget is considered almost sacrosanct.
One of the primary jobs of government is to decide how to distribute tax funds in a way agreeable to the citizenry. I think there are few, beyond John Bolton and Rumsfeld who would argue that we need more stealth bombers, more laser-guided cluster bomb daisy-cutters, or atomic artillery cannons. The argument for funding national healthcare, beyond trying to increase efficiency through streamlining, is to cut back on our essentially external military spending to focus some of that money on a purely internal and necessary reform of how U.S. citizens are kept alive. The argument that, out of 13 trillion dollars, we can't find enough money to pay for healthcare is, quite simply, laughable on its face.
Posted by: Julian | August 13, 2009 8:22 AM
Julian:
"The argument that, out of 13 trillion dollars, we can't find enough money to pay for healthcare is, quite simply, laughable on its face."
That's supposed to have a "smiley" emoticon at the end, isn't it? I'm waiting for the next round of the Appropriations Committe's dog and pony show with the Junta, I mean the Joint Chiefs. They might just pull out something like this.
"We need to continue the war in Iraqistan because it is only by having our young men and women suffer horrendous wounds that we are able to constantly improve our state of the art medical facilities, devices and techniques. When you look at one of these brave, lads or lasses, with a major head wound and multiple amputations, all that you can see is a pitiable character from Dalton Trumbo's "Johnny Got His Gun". We, the even braver men, who send them into the maw of war see a hero. More than that. We see a test bed for the efficacy of treatments and devices that once they are available to the general public will prolong and enrich the lives of civilians as well as military patients--and make a fuckuvalot of money for folks like Halliburton through their "civvie-street" subsidiaries. Gentlemen, thank you for your time; USA! USA!! USA!!! Hooooooooahhhh!
Posted by: democommie | August 13, 2009 8:51 AM
So the UK is Americas staunchest ally and in return we get our institutions insulted by a bunch of mentally retarded right wing wackos.
It might be the case that British people complain about the NHS all the time but it's rather like complaining about one of your family. When I do it it's okay but if a stranger does it I might have to ask you to step outside.
Posted by: Patrick Gray | August 13, 2009 11:02 AM
Here is a set of interesting statistics - not exactly "waiting lists", but in that vein.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/08/amenable-mortality-us-health-care-system-versus-other-countries-.html
Some snips: the information deals with
"the concept of "amenable mortality." Invented years ago in the United States and used worldwide by researchers ever since, it’s basically a body count of people who die for want of "timely and effective health care." "
There is a brief list of some items that are considered.
"Back in the mid-1990s, two British researchers measured amenable mortality in 19 industrialized countries. At the time, the U.S. ranked 15th out of the 19 (above*)."
Then this:
"Last year, the same two researchers published an update, in the January-February, 2008 issue of the scholarly journal Health Affairs. (You need a subscription to access the full article but can read a good summary of it here.) Sadly, the U.S. had by this time fallen to last place (right*).
"We got better by 4 percent, but the other countries got better by 16 percent, and the United Kingdom just blew right by us," says Cathy Schoen, M.S., senior vice president for research and evaluationof the Commonwealth Fund, a non-profit health care research organization."
The two references to "right" refer to displays in the original article.
Posted by: dean | August 13, 2009 12:08 PM
@Matt Heath: That statement actually makes sense if you assume he's the type of idiot that belived Thatcher was the best leader we've ever had. Otherwise it's just ridiculous.
Posted by: Ramel | August 13, 2009 12:49 PM
eric " It is a much, much worse error to start reasoning by example, find out that the example proves the opposite of what you thought it did, and respond by throwing out the example and keeping your original conclusion."
They aren't reasoning by example. They're starting at the conclusion and working backwards. Like Creation Science, but with sick people.
Dude "Why do you "liberals" think that comprehensive health-care should be paid for out of my pocket? And your pocket as well, and our children and grandchildren?"
Dude, why do you "conservatives" think that you should be defended by the military that I paid for out of my pocket, and your pocket as well, and our children and grandchildren? Worse, you use it all the time, and I have yet to be invaded?
No man is an island. It's "We the People", not "I the Person". A nation of "I" isn't a nation at all, it's just a bunch of people who happen to live in the same house, fighting over who should pay for the toilet paper.
Richard "There are about 60 million, not all of whom are happy with the NHS."
I'm sure that the millions of Americans who have no little to no medical coverage at all weep for them…
"The fire service comes when you need them. The NHS does not."
Aw, muffin. The system isn't perfect when it's dealing with shit that won't kill you. Now imagine if it wasn't there at all.
…
While it's nice that we're finally talking about healthcare, it saddens me deeply that one side of the argument uses anecdotes, poor logic and fear instead of, you know, facts.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 13, 2009 1:08 PM
Since the best arguments of the opposition seem to be "They'll kill your grandma and your baby" and "I don't trust a socialist government" (I assume those are their best arguments, since they don't seem to have any others), it's astounding that we don't have a comprehensive universal healthcare plan already in place.
Posted by: Chayanov | August 13, 2009 1:59 PM
IBD - great charts - and drivel too
Posted by: OH | August 13, 2009 6:59 PM
Cayanov: Well, it is America. (take from that what you will)
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 14, 2009 12:13 PM
"Well, maybe after the bus runs him over, it will flip on its side, rupturing its fuel tank. Then the burning petrol will engulf Richard and VOILA! the fire service will put him out, as if they were the NHS!"
You've just given me the most wonderful daydream. Thank you.
Posted by: Steve | August 17, 2009 7:19 PM
'I have no kids'
Strangely enough, this doesn't surprise me.
Posted by: jay | November 29, 2009 7:04 PM