Guardian Herald

First off, this is not an attack on Americans, nor is it an attack on America.
It is an attack, if you want to percieve it that way, on the American Government.

Guys what the hell are you playing at?
In 1977 the United States spent in excess of $1 trillion on health care which is by far, more than any other industrialised nation in the world; yet in many respects, it’s citizens are not the healthiest.(1)

Despite spending in excess of $1 trillion, the number of people without health insurance continues to increase reaching 43.4 million (16.1% of the population in 1997). (1)

By 2002, the HCFA projected that national health expenditures would total $2.1 trillion - an estimated 16.6 percent of the gross domestic product. (1)

The US healthcare system is the most expensive of systems, outstripping by over half again the health care expenditures of any other country. (1)

According to a Consensus conducted in 2003 preventable illness makes up approximately 80% of the burden of illness and 90% of all healthcare costs. Preventable illnesses account for eight of the nine leading categories of death.

Well thats enough of the statistics (I think).

Suffice to say, there is something seriously wrong when the general populace either cannot afford medical health care or lives in danger of losing their homes because of rising health care costs.
Worse still, many parents cannot afford to buy health insurance for their kids - I can only imagine the torment and mental trauma that is causing.

Most other civilised countries (I use the term lightly) have a system whereby the employee *contributes* to a government run health care system. The amount of *contribution* from the employee is calculated as a percentage of their wage. The more you earn, the more you pay - after all, you can aford it right?
For those that are unfortunate enough to be unemployed, your contribution is paid by the government.
If you are self-employed your contribution is slightly more than an employed person.

Each employer also has to make a contribution toward each employers health care - seems fair to me especialy as the employer will end up footing the bill for industrial accidents, work related health risks like stress etc.
In the UK it is called PAYE (pay as you earn).

On average, an employee can expect to pay around 11% of their wages. That doesn’t sound like a lot to me but I’m biased as I have paid that contribution all my working life in the UK so I have never had it to spend, ergo, I have never missed having it.
Don’t forget also that this goes toward your pension whether you need/use medical services or not!!

Of course the system is not perfect. We may have some of the most skilled surgeons and specialists in the world but where the system falls over is in current technology and waiting times.
We might not have all singing, all dancing gadgets but does that really matter that much? A cardiac monitor is a cardiac monitor - just because it makes a few extra noises, has a quad trace scope with a 4 foot flat screen so everyone within 50 feet of you can see just how bad your doing doesn’t realy make it *better* now does it?

Medical technology, like any other technology is subjective. What is the latest ‘must have’ bit of kit today will in a year or two be ‘old hat’. So why not just stay 1 year behind and save yourself a ton of money?
Lets look at it in perspective for a moment shall we.
You feel crap, you go to your doctor, he runs a battery of tests then sends you to hospital for more tests. When the hospital has done it’s tests they diagnose you with some rare flesh eating disease that means your left leg is going to fall off within two months.
Where would you like treatment? Probably America but it will cost you an absolute fortune.
But wait, what if this happened LAST year? Isn’t that the same as the difference between the ‘techonlogy gap’?
So does it really matter?

Personally, I would probably risk losing the leg - heck, what is the point in bankrupting myself if I have no money left to enjoy my changed quality of life. I’m going to need a wheelchair, crutches, an automatic vehicle, possibly some modifications to the entrance to my home. But then if I was in the UK, the medical expense, well there isn;t any. My wheelchair and crutches would be provided free by the hospital. Modification to my home would be carried out by my local area health authority and at worst I would have to pay a small contribution toward that.
The car, no problem, ‘Mobility’ will give me a brand new car, modified for my needs and pay all my running costs except for petrol - in return I’ll have to pay them a few £ a month but this would be nowhere near the ‘true’ cost.

So Mr President, if you are reading this. DO something about it!!
Other systems are not perfect but then they do not have a large proportion of the populace dying because they cannot afford treatment. Neither do they have a large proportion of the populace losing their homes, their self esteem and their self respect because they couldn’t afford medical cover.
Let me put it another way. A few days ago I was speaking to a gentleman in America. He had insurance cover but not as much as he could afford.
I asked him “If you were struck at high speed by a stolen car in which the driver was drunk and you were left with severe injuries, would you be covered for your medical expenses".
He said that he didn’t think his cover would meet the costs and that the resultant expenses were not worth contemplating. He then went on to say that if he had the power to do so, he would ask the driver to “do it again but make sure you finish me off” as he simply would not like to put his family through that sort of hardship.

1. Iglehart, J.K. “The American health care system–expenditures.” The New England Journal of Medicine, 340(1): (January 7), 1999.