America’s failure to provide
BMJ 2009; 339 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3634 (Published 07 September 2009) Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b3634
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It ought to amaze all of us who take time out to think.
America's failure to provide the basics of health care to far too
many of its citizens is, and remains a disgrace.
Rather than the support one would expect to be offered to President
Obama, the wolves have taken the brainwashing of the sheep to an entirely
new level.
Three weeks ago, while riding my bicycle home I was nearly clipped by
a vehicle. My avoidance manoeuvre, more an amygdala thing than a product
of fast reasoning, resulted in the pedal hitting the curb, sending the
bicycle into a flip and me into a salto mortale that terminated with
considerable force as a meeting of the AC joint and the concrete of the
curb.
Although I was entitled to a (free) ride to hospital by ambulance I
chose to drive myself using the uninjured left arm.
The emergency room was well organised and rather quiet for a Friday
night and I was seen by the registrar within 30 minutes. Radiographs took
another 30 and the verdict was one collarbone on the left and three on the
right. A temporary state it is hoped.
Fracture clinic was four days later, a better sling provided and a
new appointment for three weeks hence was done.
Several more visits to monitor, re-Xray and phase in physiotherapy as
needed will take place.
The total cost for this, a right of every Australian resident,
amounts to $ 00.00
I have a good idea what the bill would be in the land of the free.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I applaud Margaret Allen's anectdotal comparison of health care
provision to vulnerable patient groups in two industrialised developed
nations: impoverished and under-privileged patients in the US, and dying
patients in the UK (1).
The contrast in her account between the two patient groups is stark,
and arguably is entirely in the favour of the UK.
So, what else does she need to do? Once back in the US, spread this
word loud and clear! American citizens need to hear such first-person
accounts, in order to be able to participate in a balanced debate about
Obama's proposed reforms of US health care provision.
Yes, of course the UK NHS has its faults; as the largest employer in
Europe, this is perhaps not entirely surprising. However, despite almost
twice the GDP-spend, the US health care system also has several major
flaws, one of which is lucidly observed by Douglas Kamerow in this issue
(2).
It would be a travesty if detractors (including those who consider it
appropriate to use emotive language such as "death panels") were allowed
to seize upon the acknowledged deficiencies of the NHS and use them to
distract from the significant flaws inherent within the US health care
system, and thus derail reform.
Margaret, spread the word! Funding of health care in the world's
richest developed nation is too vital an issue to screw up.
(1) Allen ME. America's failure to provide. BMJ 2009; 339: 590 (12
Sept).
(2) Kamerow D. The gatekeeper and the wizard. BMJ 2009; 339: 602 (12
Sept).
Competing interests:
ALA was trained by, and previously worked for, the NHS; is a UK tax-payer with an interested in tax-spend; and is aware that one day we will all be a patient of some kind...
Competing interests: No competing interests
Identity Politics?
These considered (and entertaining) comments in Rapid Responses
contrast
rather favourably to the handful of crazy e-mails I have received from
health
care consumers in the United States. Who are these people?
First, I would suggest that they are not as numerous as the media
suggests.
With 24 hour news to supply, the networks are desperate for something,
anything, to buoy their incessant chatter. The nutters' outrage gives
everyone
a bit of a laff. And anyway, the 45 million uninsured don't have a voice.
More seriously, though, racism underlies the concerns of some of
those who
oppose Obama's attempts at reform. As an example, one year ago, at a
major conference of my reasonable peers, I found myself deep in discussion
with disappointed "Clintonistas" - white women who, now that their
favourite's bid for Democratic presidential candidacy was unsuccessful,
did
not know who to vote for in the general election - Obama or McCain (and
his
demented sidekick). Understandable initially, I suppose, after the drawn-
out
and hard-fought race. But honestly, they could not decide! Huh?
The Baucus Bill has just been released on Capitol Hill. It requires
that all
Americans have health insurance, and facilitates this happening. Not one
Republican member of the Senate Finance Committee signed on to it, citing
frankly spurious requirements for, among other things, restrictions on
health
care for undocumented workers and stronger guarantees that abortion would
not be covered. This is grandstanding.
We must have health care reform in the United States - it's vital for
the
people, the economy, and the future. And it might just help rescue
America
from the international derision that has been mounting over the last
eight
years.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests