I'm a British ex-pat, now living in Colorado. I've experienced health care on both sides of the Atlantic, in roughly equal measure. While I don't consider myself to be an expert, I would say I've had a very balanced view of exactly what a health care consumer deals with; what works and what doesn't.
While (touch wood) I'd consider myself healthy I have had some occasion to need treatment both here and there, and my wife and father have (unfortunately) had much more need.
First, I'd like to say that the majority of medical personnel I've dealt with here or in the U.K., have been absolute professionals... although my wife has had varying quality of care in differing cities, for a stroke. My father's cancer care in the U.K. was absolutely top notch. They caught the issue early and have given him, in his own words, excellent care.
Never let a Conservative tell you that somehow doctors in a national health system are somehow less competent or less professional. It's just not true. Period.
Rationing is universal
Both systems have limitations. A Conservative meme is that there is rationing of care in a public system. This is true. Not everyone can get every doctors visit, test and drug they wish for the second they want them in the N.H.S. They ignore, of course, the reality that there is de-facto rationing in the U.S.
We make appointments for the doctor and typically have to wait just as long in NY or Colorado, just as long as I did (or my family does) in the UK. Drug availability is, from layman's experience, on par in both systems (although consumer cost is MUCH lower in the UK, considering insurance co-pays.) Testing availability is probably greater in the U.S. (although that has not actually led to dramatically different health outcomes in my limited experience, and has complications I'll talk about next.)
Do Liberals love lawyers? Does malpractice have unforseen widespread bottom line costs?
I had a conversation with my doctor this afternoon. He's a republican and I had spirited political discussion a bit before and immediately after the election.
He actually raised the issue today, and I was a bit surprised at his view. He's not a "death panel" or free market zealot, or worried that somehow he'll be driven out of business by the evil government bureaucrats. He's not, from what I can tell, anti-Medicare.
His issue about the whole proposed system is (lack of) tort-reform, here's why:
Doctor's have essentially unlimited liability for their patients. If most patients ailments are "Horses", he HAS to treat for "Zebras", even if its only probable that its a "Horse".
He has to use the most conservative and defensive treatment game plan to cover himself, certainly, but this unnecessary usage of facilities definitely drives up everyone's costs and (in-part) institutes rationing in a theoretically ration-less system.
Now, do I have sympathy for victims of medical mistakes? Absolutely. I do wonder, however, if the current limitless system isn't a big part of the problem, that next to no-one is talking about.
All of the health systems that we liberals love to talk about, yes have a public option or system, but also have limitations on consumers suing their healthcare providers.
Should we have tort-reform, not only because its unsustainable in the long term but also perhaps as a deal to get what we want with fence sitting blue-dogs and republicans?