British Health Care is Better Than You Think

British health care gets unrepentantly demonized. It’s called “filthy.” It’s accused of having low standards. It’s labeled “socialized medicine” and snubbed.  Rarely do we even take a second look.

If we did, we might realize that what separates the U.S. from the U.K. in terms of our health care systems is ideology. What “socialized medicine” stands for is universal, free access to health care: medicine as a right, and not a privilege.

President Obama’s reform plan seeks to expand coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. But a government insurance option is merely a band-aid, not a change of attitude. What the plan fails to do is treat the cause of the problem, which is an unnecessarily complicated system governed by insurance companies. Instead of “insuring” people as if they were cars, health care needs to be treated as a social institution, like education and government. All three ensure the vibrancy and progression of the species.

Of course, the ideology of universal, single-payer coverage has its downsides. The British health care system must provide for many, rather than a few, which increases the risk of resource shortages and rationing.

But this is also the system that has been keeping Britain healthy since World War II. And not only healthy… but a full 16 places ahead of the United States in terms of the overall life expectancy of its citizens. If the British system succeeds in offering wider coverage, with better results, then why is it still being ignored and bad-mouthed?

The simple answer is: fear. Fear of government interference is so strong that the American public would rather private companies held the lives of the citizens in their hands. Insurance companies discriminate and pharmaceutical companies have more to gain from public sickness than public health, yet both are considered a lesser evil than the risk of more government authority.

In England, it is customary for the government to pass legislation addressing social health issues. Cigarette packets display large warnings about the dangers of smoking. Junk food is banned from schools. T.V. commercials target binge drinkers. It’s not the equivalent of an Orwellian dystopia. The NHS functions on a set of medical guidelines that emphasize prevention and need. It is in the government’s best interest to maintain a healthy citizenry that requires fewer resources.

But fear tells Americans that universal health care means more for everyone else, and less for themselves, as Betsy McCaughey exemplifies in her American Spectator article, “Downgrading American Medical Care” (July/August 2009). McCaughey believes that government backed health care would mean scarcity and the downgrading of the entire system. And why should America have anything less than the best, merely to compensate for those who can’t afford to pay? “The truth is,” writes McCaughey, “Americans can afford better health care than Europeans.”

And it is true. Almost. Americans are the highest wage earners of the Western World. But the country also has the biggest divide between rich and poor. So, yes, some Americans can afford great health care. Others can afford none. The idea that financially comfortable Americans should risk sharing their excellent health care system with the less fortunate is entirely unacceptable, according to some. Implementing a European-style health care system would be like “ordering all Americans to go on diets and buy fewer groceries because the food stamp program is in trouble,” writes McCaughey.

But haven’t obesity and consumerism become American staples? Maybe we could use taking a little less, giving a little more, and thinking a little differently.

Tags: Britain, England, Health Care, NHS