Steven Hawking is Alive and Well

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The estimable Jay Bookman discovered this unintentionally-hilarious item in the Investor's Business Daily on health care reform. The headline reads, "How House Bill Runs Over Grandma."

The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the "quality adjusted life year."

One year in perfect health gets you one point. Deductions are taken for blindness, for being in a wheelchair and so on.

The more points you have, the more your life is considered worth saving, and the likelier you are to get care.

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.

Human Events, the right-wing magazine, lauded this IBD piece for having "exposed the Achilles' heel of Obamacare."

Now, it might be tempting to respond to the IBD piece by noting that the health care reform proposal backed by Democrats is in no way similar to the British health care system, so these mind-numbing comparisons don't make any sense. That, of course, would be a fair response.

But let's not overlook the punch-line here. As Bookman noted, "Of course, that same Stephen Hawking who wouldn't have a chance in the United Kingdom was in fact born in the United Kingdom, has lived his entire life in the United Kingdom and lives there still today, at the ripe old age of 67. (He was in fact hospitalized earlier this month.) Hawking is, you might say, living, breathing proof that these people are first-class fools."

Ever wonder what the reform debate would be like if conservatives approached it with a shred of intellectual seriousness?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[moelarrycheese 0]

Stephen Hawking is quite wealthy and thus able to afford healthcare unavailable in the UK. He routinely travels to the USA for procedures and therapies he can't get in Britain. He does this all on his own dime in addition to supporting a system that would not work for him.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Stephen Hawking is quite wealthy and thus able to afford healthcare unavailable in the UK. He routinely travels to the USA for procedures and therapies he can't get in Britain. He does this all on his own dime in addition to supporting a system that would not work for him.

I don't think anyone denies that for the upper crust, American medical care is the best in the world.

The people we are trying to look out for right now are those who are unable to access any level of meaningful care.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Stephen Hawking wasn't born wealthy though. His medical condition has been with him a lot longer than his wealth has.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Stephen Hawking wasn't born wealthy though. His medical condition has been with him a lot longer than his wealth has.

Not necessarily true, he had a very privileged childhood. I doubt at anytime in his life his only choice would of been that of the government.

[_Simpson_ 250]

But let's not overlook the punch-line here. As Bookman noted, "Of course, that same Stephen Hawking who wouldn't have a chance in the United Kingdom was in fact born in the United Kingdom, has lived his entire life in the United Kingdom and lives there still today, at the ripe old age of 67. (He was in fact hospitalized earlier this month.) Hawking is, you might say, living, breathing proof that these people are first-class fools."

I think you shot yourself in the foot on this one. This article makes a horrible comparison, as if some how Stephen Hawking accomplishments are somehow credited to the great health care system that of the UK(that in a subtle way is what this article is trying to get at). Him living in the UK all his life says nothing about the health care system, he has never had to rely on it.

Edited August 10, 2009 by looking_up

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But let's not overlook the punch-line here. As Bookman noted, "Of course, that same Stephen Hawking who wouldn't have a chance in the United Kingdom was in fact born in the United Kingdom, has lived his entire life in the United Kingdom and lives there still today, at the ripe old age of 67. (He was in fact hospitalized earlier this month.) Hawking is, you might say, living, breathing proof that these people are first-class fools."

I think you shot yourself in the foot on this one. This article makes a horrible comparison, as if some how Stephen Hawking accomplishments are somehow credited to the great health care system that of the UK(that in a subtle way is what this article is trying to get at). Him living in the UK all his life says nothing about the health care system, he has never had to rely on it.

I think you should go back and read the OP. Perhaps click on the linked article it was referring to.

[moelarrycheese 0]

Stephen Hawking is quite wealthy and thus able to afford healthcare unavailable in the UK. He routinely travels to the USA for procedures and therapies he can't get in Britain. He does this all on his own dime in addition to supporting a system that would not work for him.

I don't think anyone denies that for the upper crust, American medical care is the best in the world.

The people we are trying to look out for right now are those who are unable to access any level of meaningful care.

In a system like Britain's, those without wealth are subject to rationed care. They ARE unable to access any meaningful level of care. They fare worse than those without wealth in the USA, who can go to any hospital in the country for medical attention, with or without insurance. It would certainly be foolish to lower the care available for those currently covered by private insurance, in order to do a national health plan that will lower care for those currently without it! The whole thing is a government scam to get more money and power over the citizens.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Stephen Hawking has a genetic disease. An onset gene that became activated.

However, his papers have contributed to thousands of modern day inventions. He deserve some credit to make humans live with such technologies.

[Oosie 1]

Stephen Hawking is quite wealthy and thus able to afford healthcare unavailable in the UK. He routinely travels to the USA for procedures and therapies he can't get in Britain. He does this all on his own dime in addition to supporting a system that would not work for him.

I don't think anyone denies that for the upper crust, American medical care is the best in the world.

The people we are trying to look out for right now are those who are unable to access any level of meaningful care.

In a system like Britain's, those without wealth are subject to rationed care. They ARE unable to access any meaningful level of care. They fare worse than those without wealth in the USA, who can go to any hospital in the country for medical attention, with or without insurance. It would certainly be foolish to lower the care available for those currently covered by private insurance, in order to do a national health plan that will lower care for those currently without it! The whole thing is a government scam to get more money and power over the citizens.

Your post shows very little knowledge of the British healthcare system. I lived in the UK for 45 years and worked for the NHS for 25.

Britain's health care system does not ration the care of those without wealth. The care provided is available to all who qualify for it and to many who do not. Care is provided on a basis of medical need and cost effectiveness. Procedures that have not been clinically proven are generally not available. For example, arthroscopic knee surgery is not provided by the NHS as clinical evidence shows that patient recovery rates are faster is no surgery is given but the patient simply has intensive physiotherapy. In the US insurance companies will not pay for the physical therapy without the patient having surgery first.

Private health insurance in the UK allows holders to avoid waiting for minor procedures until they are clinically needed but to have surgery at a date and time the patient wants. Emergency care is not provided by private hospitals and patients with post surgical complications are routinely transferred to NHS hospitals.

No private hospital in the UK will treat anyone without insurance or the money to pay but NHS hospitals will accept any and all patients who go to the Accident and Emergency Dept. It's become increasingly common in recent years for Americans with or without insurance to travel to the UK, ostensibly on vacation, and present themselves for emergency treatment in the hope the bill will never catch up. Thankfully British hospitals are getting better at following up foreign patients who abuse the system.

Here in America our health insurance premium is 30% of our income and we get faster treatment than we would in the UK but we are limited as to how much treatment we get. If we lived in the UK we would pay 11% of our income for government run healthcare with no limits to care, this money would also cover the equivalent of social security and we would have the option of private insurance to speed up care if we wanted it. I know what system I prefer.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stephen Hawking is quite wealthy and thus able to afford healthcare unavailable in the UK. He routinely travels to the USA for procedures and therapies he can't get in Britain. He does this all on his own dime in addition to supporting a system that would not work for him.

I don't think anyone denies that for the upper crust, American medical care is the best in the world.

The people we are trying to look out for right now are those who are unable to access any level of meaningful care.

In a system like Britain's, those without wealth are subject to rationed care. They ARE unable to access any meaningful level of care. They fare worse than those without wealth in the USA, who can go to any hospital in the country for medical attention, with or without insurance. It would certainly be foolish to lower the care available for those currently covered by private insurance, in order to do a national health plan that will lower care for those currently without it! The whole thing is a government scam to get more money and power over the citizens.

Your post shows very little knowledge of the British healthcare system. I lived in the UK for 45 years and worked for the NHS for 25.

Britain's health care system does not ration the care of those without wealth. The care provided is available to all who qualify for it and to many who do not. Care is provided on a basis of medical need and cost effectiveness. Procedures that have not been clinically proven are generally not available. For example, arthroscopic knee surgery is not provided by the NHS as clinical evidence shows that patient recovery rates are faster is no surgery is given but the patient simply has intensive physiotherapy. In the US insurance companies will not pay for the physical therapy without the patient having surgery first.

Private health insurance in the UK allows holders to avoid waiting for minor procedures until they are clinically needed but to have surgery at a date and time the patient wants. Emergency care is not provided by private hospitals and patients with post surgical complications are routinely transferred to NHS hospitals.

No private hospital in the UK will treat anyone without insurance or the money to pay but NHS hospitals will accept any and all patients who go to the Accident and Emergency Dept. It's become increasingly common in recent years for Americans with or without insurance to travel to the UK, ostensibly on vacation, and present themselves for emergency treatment in the hope the bill will never catch up. Thankfully British hospitals are getting better at following up foreign patients who abuse the system.

Here in America our health insurance premium is 30% of our income and we get faster treatment than we would in the UK but we are limited as to how much treatment we get. If we lived in the UK we would pay 11% of our income for government run healthcare with no limits to care, this money would also cover the equivalent of social security and we would have the option of private insurance to speed up care if we wanted it. I know what system I prefer.

doh!

[Peikko 1,575]

It is going to cost more in future though - the problem of the aging population. What gets me about the scare stories of the aging population is that the 'solution' is to have more babies. Duh, the solution is to accept that there will be a necessary 'bulge' in expenditure but that once the 'bulge' goes through, it's plain sailing from there on in, particularly if a reasonable, sustainable population is the result, which is what it SHOULD be, which is what it MUST be if we don't want to undergo acute measures of population control like mass starvation which is a lot worse than paying up to 20% in social security.