Press "Enter" to skip to content

Brits Love National Health Service; Massachusetts Boosts RomneyCare

Mitt Romney could have mitigated the damage of his ugly, undiplomatic performance in England last week if he had just complimented socialized medicine in the United Kingdom the way he did later in Israel. The Brits love their National Health Service. Here's economist Simon Wren-Lewis's explanation for all those dancing nurses in the Olympic opening ceremony:

What is perhaps not understood outside the UK is that the British regard the NHS as an institution on an equal par to our monarchy. Not beyond criticism, but seen as absolutely essential to national life. While many aspects of the 1945 post-war social transformation have been swept aside (nationalisation of utilities) or greatly modified, the idea that the health service should be free to all and paid for through taxation is sacrosanct. In a MORI survey, when people were asked to agree that either "˜The NHS is critical to British society and we must do everything we can to maintain it' or "˜The NHS was a great project but we probably can't maintain it in its current form', nearly 80% chose the former and only 20% the latter. A report for the Healthcare Commission prepared by MORI concluded [Simon Wren-Lewis, "Why the National Health Service Played a Central Part in the Olympic Ceremony," Mainly Macro, 2012.07.31].

Wren-Lewis notes that the U.K. consistently outperforms the U.S. on health care efficiency, due in part to America's vastly greater administrative expenses.

Neither RomneyCare nor ObamaCare (remember: pretty much the same thing!) socializes medicine as thoroughly as the U.K.'s National Health Service. But it's worth noting that, once Americans get a taste of effective socialized medicine, they won't go back. That's what happened with Medicare... and that's why Rep. Kristi Noem has to promise she won't change it for anyone who already has Medicare or who is within a few years of getting it in order to cover her support for destroying the program.

That's also why the Massachusetts Legislature is not dismantling RomneyCare but protecting and bolstering it with cost controls:

Massachusetts lawmakers have given final approval to a bill designed to save up to $200 billion in health care costs over the next 15 years.

Gov. Deval Patrick said he looks forward to signing the bill.

Legislative leaders say the bill will help guarantee the future of the state's landmark health care law and make Massachusetts the first state to set a goal limiting the future growth of health care costs.

...Patrick said the bill builds on the state's existing health care record.

"With over 98 percent of our residents insured today, we've shown the nation how to extend coverage to everyone," Patrick said in a statement. "Now we are poised to do the same on controlling costs" [Steve LeBlanc, "Mass. Lawmakers Approve Health Care Cost Bill," AP via Boston Globe, 2012.08.01].

Brits, Bostonians, and old fogeys agree: once you go for socialized health coverage, you never go back.

33 Comments

  1. John Hess 2012.08.02

    It's just obstruction. If Democrats want it Republicans are against it regardless. Give no points to the other side. How sad. Read someone's comment that the middle isn't important, just a yellow line in the highway or a dead Armadillo. What's in the middle may not be cutting edge, but the middle just wants reasonable solutions on most issues. We're marching in place which is just ridiculous.

  2. Julie Gross (NE) 2012.08.02

    --That’s also why the Massachusetts Legislature is not dismantling RomneyCare but protecting and bolstering it with cost controls:

    Cost controls= cutting funds for the elderly, poor, children, women and anyone else without a voice.

    Typical liberals: protect your crony socialism at the expense of the "little people" in the 99%.

  3. Julie Gross (NE) 2012.08.02

    --Brits, Bostonians, and old fogeys agree: once you go for socialized health coverage, you never go back.

    Of course old fogies love young folks paying for their Medicare: they get very cheap health care while collecting their pension checks and social security checks.

    Why are we not means testing Medicare? Answer: because Dems will never alienate the old folks who vote for them in large numbers. When GW wanted to reform SS/MC, the Dems cheared when they defeated his efforts. Gawd, what shameful cowards.

  4. John Hess 2012.08.02

    Julie, Are you sure your opinions are based in how things actually are?

    "In an election marked by dramatic defections from the Democratic Party, older voters swung hardest, seemingly threatened by President Barack Obama’s mantra of change.

    Voters over 65 favored Republicans last week by a 21-point margin after flirting with Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections and favoring John McCain by a relatively narrow 8-point margin in 2008."

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44802.html

  5. John Hess 2012.08.02

    One of the best ways to control health care costs would be "death panels", better called end of life consultations and a living will. Most people don't want extreme measures late in life when their quality of life has deteriorated to almost nil. Shame on those for vilifying a necessary step in respectful care.

  6. Dave 2012.08.02

    I, too, must question Julie's claims.

    The legislation Cory mentions has broad support from businesses and the healthcare industry.

    "Central to the bill is a plan to save up to $200 billion over 15 years by pegging the increase in healthcare costs to no more than the rate of growth in the state's economy...

    "... The bill also pushes the creation of "accountable care organizations" designed to provide coordinated medical care for patients in place of the traditional piecemeal approach.

    Healthcare spending would be capped at a growth rate no faster than the state economy through 2017, and in the following five years would be constrained further, to half a percentage point below the growth of the state economy.

    Other provisions of the current bill include an additional allocation for public health programs, community-based prevention and wellness efforts aimed at preventable chronic diseases, and reforms to medical malpractice laws." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/massachusetts-health-care-cost_n_1725705.html)

  7. John Hess 2012.08.02

    It's not about policy, but partisanship. Many Republicans obviously have agreed on health care, but if they agree with Dems on policy and voters are happy with status quo, the Republicans won't get back in power. It's really that simple. Tear down the other party at almost any cost.

  8. Julie Gross (NE) 2012.08.02

    --Are you sure your opinions are based in how things actually are?

    Maybe those old folks noticed that Obama took $500 BILLION from Medicare Advantage to fund Obamacare.

    Even AARP could not put a good spin on that.

  9. Julie Gross (NE) 2012.08.02

    --The legislation Cory mentions has broad support from businesses and the healthcare industry.

    Now I'm confused: I thought we're supposed to hate big business, Big Pharma and Big Med?

    As a dutiful Dems, aren't we supposed to be suspicious of EVERYTHING big business supports?

    Gee, why would biz and big med be in favor of gov't spending on healthcare? Gosh, what could motivate big med and big biz to support such a thing?

  10. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.08.02

    And now Julie dodges, trying to turn the argument into her preferred corner-painting talking points about Democrats rather than the clear superiority of the U.K.'s National Health Service and our own Medicare over the private insurance system.

  11. Julie Gross (NE) 2012.08.02

    --trying to turn the argument into her preferred corner-painting talking points about Democrats

    Strawman.

    WHEN are you going to address the substance?
    Name-calling and tossing around your strawmen just isn't very intelligent.

    Isn't is true that Obama took $500 BILLION from Medicare Advantage to fund Obamacre, AND counted it twice: As a savings from Medicare then as a funding stream to Obamacare.

    How can taking $500 BILLION from Medicare make Medkicare "superior"?

  12. Vincent Gormley 2012.08.02

    Ms. Gross has a bunch of sound bites she has most likely practiced ad infinitum but little understanding to support her contentions. She obviously doesn't even know what Medicare Advantage is and who really has the advantage. I'd love to be around when she becomes old. Young'uns and their bitter resentment go figure.

  13. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.08.02

    The fact that conservatives holler about PPACA's purported Medicare cuts shows that even they recognize that people love Medicare and don't want it reduced. That's exactly why Noem has to be so cautious in declaring her support for ending Medicare via the Ryan plan, because if people realized the snow job she's selling, they'd fire her tomorrow.

    Wait: "purported"? Yup:

    —Romney wrong: PPACA slows rate of growth, but cuts no benefits, reduces costs by reducing fraud and overpayments, funds new benefits such as free preventive care and broader prescription coverage and closing the doughnut hole.
    —Julie's claim "mostly false"
    George W. Bush's Medicare chief says PPACA does not cut Medicare.

    Short: President Obama and I want to make Medicare work sustainably for everyone. Noem, Ryan, and the GOP want to kill Medicare as soon as they can buy off enough voters by grandfathering them in.

  14. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.08.02

    Plus, Julie shouts to hide the dodge she's committing: UK NHS and Medicare are still superior to our private insurance system.

  15. John Hess 2012.08.02

    You know what they say, "Just the facts ma'am." If you have a different opinion, no problem, but cite your source. Accurate information seems to scare Julie off.

  16. Julie Gross (NE) 2012.08.02

    Great, we're finally talking about what Obamacare took from Medicare, instead of name-calling. That's progress.

    'According to a report from the Kaiser Family Health Foundation over the next 10 years, the federal government will devote about $500 billion less to Medicare than it would have without ACA."

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/fact-checking-romney-does-health-reform-cut-medicare-levy-500-billion-tax/

    Devoting 500 billion less to Medicare sounds like taking 500 billion from Medicare. Right?

    Now, I suppose Obamacare's cut in the rate of increase in Medicare spending is not necessarily a "cut" (supposedly funded by finding "waste & fraud") , but tell that to the Medicare Advantage folks who indeed will suffer the cuts.

  17. Eve Fisher 2012.08.02

    Dear Ms. Gross: Savings in the future does not equal taking from Medicare in the present. The article you cited says, specifically, "CMS and the Kaiser Family Foundation tell ABC News that there will be no benefit cuts to Medicare." According to Politifact, there will be $500 billion savings, from "reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare... increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and ... from administrative changes." Granted, all of this is in the future, and, therefore can be considered as fictional as Star Trek teleportation. But projected savings do not equal "taking away" in the present, and no amount of shouting can make it so.

  18. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.08.02

    Ah, so Julie really did want to distract us from the main topic and shift to the issue she thinks she can spin better than the fact that the Brits love NHS, our old folks love Medicare, and that private insurance doesn't perform as efficiently. Mission accomplished for this post... plus as a bonus, we debunk the myth Julie helps the GOP peddle that Obama cut Medicare. The Republicans want to end Medicare, one of the few shining stars of the American health coverage system.

  19. Vincent Gormley 2012.08.02

    If those enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan would do their homework they would find the advantage falls to the private insurer providing it. And at tax payer expense. Ms. Gross wants to have it both ways. AARP is a spin machine for the insurance industry. They sold us on Catastrophic Care and later had to support its repeal. Republicans are educationally challenged. They communicate in catchy mantras absent of the truth and constructive ideas. Bring on Universal Single Payer or Medicare for All and heal this nation. First up mental health care for Republicans whether office holders or not, they are in desperate need. Oh and Canadians love their healthcare, too.

  20. Jana 2012.08.02

    I think Julie agrees with Mitt Romney. While in Poland, Romney praised the Polish economy saying that it "empowered the individual, lifted the heavy hand of government, and became the fastest-growing economy in all of Europe."

    He even went on to praise Poland's economy Tuesday as a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.

    Interesting that CBS fact checkers point out that: "Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens."

    Once again Mitt embraces a country with socialized health care as a vital part of their economy.

  21. G-Man 2012.08.02

    Like I said before, Romney is sure going to have a hell of time trying to explain himself in the upcoming debates concerning his socialized healthcare plan in Massachusetts which has his fingerprints all over it...LOL! Then, there are those pesky tax returns that keep coming up over and over and over again! LOL

  22. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.08.03

    Incredible! Mitt blows his message in all three countries! He really is Sarah Palin!

  23. Joseph G Thompson 2012.08.03

    Not going to get involved in this discussion, cause it has been 40 years since I expierienced British NHS, but I do remember being told then that the average Brit, before NHS, really had no health insurance provided by anyone, so automatically NHS is better. Does anybody but me read British newpapers?

  24. John Hess 2012.08.03

    Here's an interesting statement: Following the outbreak of the Boer War in 1899, the Government received a severe shock when one-third of men volunteering their services for the armed services were rejected on grounds of poor health. At a time when international tensions were starting to become strained and with the growth of foreign powers such as Germany and the United States, the fact that Britain had struggled to raise a fighting force was incredibly worrying. The National Health Insurance Act, as Lloyd-George stated, was to provide 'the relief of pauperism' and help pull Britain back to its feet.
    http://kithandkinresearch.posterous.com/the-dawn-of-hope-the-birth-of-national-insura

  25. Vincent Gormley 2012.08.03

    Yes, Joseph I read publications like the Guardian online and have a BBC app on my android. My maternal grandfather was a Brit. Being the only grandparent I knew he obviously was a great influence. This discussion has been really enjoyable because of the contributions, particularly those of John and Cory, and Eve and Jana. Great job as always Cory.

  26. John Hess 2012.08.03

    It's something to feel passionate about. A country has got to care for the health of its people. What's interesting about the history is how much the medical profession, employers, and wage earners were all against their first national program, and now how positively Britain views their fully nationalized system. That last article referenced did a good job of explaining that and is well worth reading.

  27. John Hess 2012.08.17

    Mitt's mother supported national health care while running for Senate in 1970. From June 4, 2012 Time: Lenore had her own version of Romney-care, calling for a national health plan in the long term and an interim insurance program. And she believed in legalized abortions, but didn't "think abortion should be used as a birth control measure. We should prevent pregnancies rather than abort them." It is "more important to lessen the physical and mental dangers ... and remove the criminal element, than it is to attempt legislated morality."

  28. Justin 2012.08.17

    Wow, Mitt's mom sounds like Mitt when he wasn't pretending to be whatever it is the GOP campaign pays for.

  29. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.08.18

    John: that's a big quote! So apparently Romney rejects the political model of both of his parents (recall George Romney on releasing tax returns). Wow!

Comments are closed.