Stupidity and its effects on international politics

[fpb]

A sentence from the political struggle in America has gone viral in Britain, as an example of the ignorance, stupidity and vicious prejudice that drives a certain part of American public opinion. This is the sentence: People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless. This piece of folly does not come from some twelve-reader blog out in freakland, but from the Investors' Business Daily, favoured and eagerly quoted intellectual leader of the conservative movement.

The Professor himself has just responded in no uncertain terms: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived." For that matter, every Briton, indeed every European, who is disabled or has a disabled relative - which include yours truly - knows what to think of it. Indeed, the NHS as a whole is, without exception, the most respected and downright loved body in British society, with a level of public credibility and support that no other organization or group even dreams of. To use it as a kind of bogeyman is an outrage against everything the British hold dear, and I am not, repeat not, exaggerating.

Not that I harbour any hope that anyone over there might even pay attention. The self-absorption, the self-regard, the total unwillingness to learn from abroad, that are among the most infuriating characteristics of the American conservative mind, have reached the point of total separation from reality in this particular matter. Hysteria about "socialized medicine" has become so widespread among American conservatives that any response from Europe would only be met with a barrage of insults. (All right, American conservatives: if I am wrong - prove it!! But I forecast that this post will receive nothing from my conservative friends, except perhaps the odd attack on my motivations or morals.)

The IBD itself has tried to rewrite its outrageous original argument, without realizing that it is simply a minor part of a misrepresentation of the British experience so huge and deeply stupid as to discourage anything except contempt from anyone who actually knows the facts. The only thing they have seen fit to correct is the evidence that they were unaware of Professor Hawking's nationality, but they have not even begun to wrap their minds around the obvious fact that this gratuitous and grotesque howler is symptomatic of the fallacy in their whole argument - that they are talking about something that simply does not exist and that has no relation to reality.

Comments

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

The ecconomics of helth care are important. Perhaps if the insurance companies and the health trusts were run as public companies for the good of the nation, rather than as profit making organisations, then the ecconomics would make more sense. But that would probably be described as socialism by some.

In the German system, the main insurance providers aren't publicly held, but they are nonprofits and get a reasonable amount of oversight. That seems to be sufficient to remove the worst incentives for bad behavior on the part of insurers.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

There are many different ways of doing this, and they suit different countries. The German system resembles what used to be the case in Italy before the late nineteen-seventies; it did not work in Italy, and was overlaid by a new system more like the British, but heavily localized. Japan and France, as I understand it, have a heavy private component in their system. I have an idea that Obama's problem has been to propose a system that is virtually incomprehensible, over-detailed and not open to argument.

Another data point

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

Belgium also has private nonprofit insurance providers. The costs and services covered are identical for all of them; this is mandated by law. I have no idea what people perceive to be the difference between them, but there are five of them.

It is also possible to obtain supplemental coverage through private insurers to offset those costs which the compulsory system does not cover; as far as I am aware, this includes extra costs associated with hospital stays (e.g., if a patient wants to stay in a private room), orthodontics, and "alternative" (i.e., non-evidence-based) treatments.

Thus far I am quite happy with the health care my family has received, and we draw on the health care system rather more than most families do. (I would rather we did not have to, but that is the hand we have been dealt.)