 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Just watching the news. The obamacare (US healthcare reform) does seem to be exercising the republicans. Coming from a country with the NHS I can't get my head around affordable healthcare for those without not being what any grown up, mature, 'wealthy' country should be aiming to aspire to having and getting right. His efforts are not turning him into the next Nye Bevan.....
What's the downside they seem to hate him for? Similarly why are the US poor(er) not hailing him a hero? Point me to an idiots guide.
What's the downside they seem to hate him for?
Look at the budget as a whole for the NHS in the UK, Then scale that up to a country the size of the US. Then imagine all thats being run privately with a profit margin on top and that treatment has been comodified as luxury and a lifestyle.
There are going to be some considerable vested interests and a lot of shit slinging.
I think that they think that state sponsored healthcare will come with lots of strings, and they would rather freedom from state intervention on principle.
[img] 
[/img]
maccruiskeen - MemberLook at the budget as a whole for the NHS in the UK, Then scale that up to a country the size of the US
Except that US healthcare is far more expensive than UK healthcare. (even leaving aside private healthcare they spend more per head on state healthcare than we do, in order to provide a worse service, to about 1/3d of the population instead of 1/1)
Sure, there would be a profit-taking impact but according to the figures I've seen, healthcare providers would have to be taking very nearly 50% of the spend as profit before this became more expensive than the current system.
The US (conurbations like New York aside) is just not a very socially progressive country, and that is about all there is to it.
Its hard to see what they have against free healthcare for all citizens tbh.
Sure the NHS is shit , bureaucratic and makes mistakes but it is just like education in being a no brainer as to what any country wants - healthy and educated people.
It's because universal healthcare is tantamount to communism. And therefore Obama is Stalin. Or Hitler, for some reason i can't really work out. for wanting everyone to have access to affordable healthcare, he's clearly evil! Turkeys voting for Christmas doesn't even begin to cover it.
More worrying though.... We have a government that seems to regard the American system as something to aim for.
I'm working out here, and I think it boils down to healthcare insurance getting more expensive for many. Which, as far as I can tell, is because the most insurance companies are allowed to charge now is something like $12k per year for insurance, so they are, for everyone.
Apparently this is Obamas fault.
We are the only country in the world with an NHS. Its horrendously expensive and we can barely afford it. I agree - I can't understand why americans seem to reject the concept of some form of health service, but I can understand them having an issue on the basis of cost, especially when they're over a Trillion dollars in the red already. It must look like financial scuicide to many.
The middle-class Republican's don't want to pay more to fund it and the poorer population probably just don't trust the government in general
Sitting in the middle ground here in Oz, I'm impressed a basic coverage that will look after you but a comprehensive private top up available to let you take advantage of private and give you more choice of what you want to get done.
We are the only country in the world with an NHS.
Canada?
My favourite quote from the anti camp was 'Obamacare is a socialist policy. Hitler was a National Socialist. Do you want Nazi policies?'
My favourite quote from the anti camp was 'Obamacare is a socialist policy. Hitler was a National Socialist. Do you want Nazi policies?'
That is all sorts of special that quote.
wobbliscott
the US government already spends double as a % of GDP what we do on healthcare and still they have shorter life expectancies so by that measure our horrendously expensive NHS is quite cheap
In the long run this should save america $$$
Wasn't the Republican opposition to this that, as a country founded on people doing things for themselves to enrich themselves, having to rely on the state for healthcare is seen as undermining that capitalist spirit in a fundamental way?
We are the only country in the world with an NHS. Its horrendously expensive and we can barely afford it. I agree - I can't understand why americans seem to reject the concept of some form of health service, but I can understand them having an issue on the basis of cost, especially when they're over a Trillion dollars in the red already. It must look like financial scuicide to many.
The UK NHS is pretty cheap compared to most comparable countries, the per person costs of health care in the US is staggering in comparison, and only a very few of them get any better treatment than a standard British citizen.
Junkyard - lazarusSure the NHS is shit
But it's not. It's the envy of the morally conscious world. Although if you listen to the Tory press, it is shit. I wonder if there is a vested interest in turning the NHS in to private healthcare?
binners - Member
It's because universal healthcare is tantamount to communism. And therefore Obama is Stalin. Or Hitler, for some reason i can't really work out.
But then Hilter was more left wing than our current left wing politicians. Which is why he was classed as a National Socialist. He just wanted to exterminate anyone who didn't fit his "aryan race" ideology.
More worrying though.... We have a government that seems to regard the American system as something to aim for.
Because they can make a profit from it.
Working currently in the US and UK clinical sectors. Much of what is said above is correct. US Healthcare is more expensive per head of population than the NHS and has massive disadvantages for the poorer sectors of US population. I've seen this first hand with our lab being in a bankrupt charity hospital in west central Detroit (you'd never complain about the NHS again once you'd seen this). For those that can afford it the US has some of the best healthcare in the world.
However for a high proportion of the US Obamacare will make their expensive healthcare a bit more expensive. That it why the Republicans are so massively against it and any form of extra government taxes. It's not just healthcare that needs reform and funding - look at the state of much of the US's infrastructure eg. roads and bridges.
Most Americans also have a highly negative view of the NHS. Mainly due to our waiting lists. If you have private healthcare you see docs much more quickly and probably too frequently (escalating costs).
I believe that the French Healthcare system if probably the most complete state funded system in Europe not the NHS? Health Canada is a very good system but per head of population Canada is now doing much better economically than the US and can afford it. The best systems seem to be a mixture of a small amount of cost to the wealthier and state funding like the German system.
USA spends the most per capita $8,233. The UK is down at number 15 with $3,433. You might think that Canada should be comparable to the USA but they only spend $4,445.
Is the difference the number of Ferraris owned by doctors and dentists in the USA?
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita ]Wiki[/url]
wobbliscott - MemberWe are the only country in the world with an NHS. Its horrendously expensive and we can barely afford it.
It isn't. Our healthcare spend isn't high at all, it's lower than France and Germany, half that of the USA. The irony is we maybe can't afford their model but we're moving to break down our own, cheaper system.
But it's not. It's the envy of the morally conscious world. Although if you listen to the Tory press, it is shit. I wonder if there is a vested interest in turning the NHS in to private healthcare?
The NHS is adequate if you're articulate, intelligent and pushy. If you don't really know what's going on and let them get on with it it is very shit indeed.
Its horrendously expensive and we can barely afford it. I agree
You say this about everything - benefits, NHS and it is always just utter BS - I am beginning to wonder which of the fallen right wing trolls you are tbh
You say utter nonsense everyone says its utter nonsense then you dont return - its like facts dont matter to you when yo have such contempt for helping folk.
Its cheaper than the American model and does universal coverage as well
But it's not
Its a poor choice of words for me when I really meant is easy to criticise it when it fails but yes it amongst the top three of British things of which I am proud and it should be universally applied everywhere - iirc the UN advise that there is universal healthcare.
i did nto really mena the NHS is shit - sorry.
Its cheaper than the American model and does universal coverage as well
I prefer the British model to the US model, but the reason for resistance is obvious.
If you have good care and the government wants to charge you more so other people can have care too you end up paying more. In a culture based on self-reliance this is a hard sell. It is morally wrong to many Americans.
Wasn't the Republican opposition to this that, as a country founded on people doing things for themselves to enrich themselves
Yes. The whole American ideal is based on people being expected to go out and do things for themselves. Anything that even sounds slightly like the state taking responsibility for ensuring that its citizens are looked after is considered socialism/communism. As such, many of the people who would benefit most (eg the poor) are very much against it on principle.
As I work for a US company, I've had this discussion quite a lot. Many of the people I speak to have massive misunderstandings about how the NHS works and don't realise just how good a service it does provide (even given all its many faults). For me, finding out how much people pay for healthcare in the US was pretty shocking, especially when you find out how much extra things like childbirth are.
Part of that it because healthcare is a commodity, there's a huge incentive to 'over provide' - eg childbirth requires a whole list of people because that covers every eventuality and allows the hospital to charge more rather than take a more considered view.
Anything that even sounds slightly like the state taking responsibility for ensuring that its citizens are looked after is considered socialism/communism
Not the military though that is proper socilaist/ state provision as how else could the envy of the free world[s] maintain its strategic interest in oil rich or geographically convenient countries [/s] protect demmocracy on foreign land
Well, don't point that out 😉
I think that's still a hangover from the war for independence...
#'Obamacare is a socialist policy. Hitler was a National Socialist. Do you want Nazi policies?'
I would have laughed at that, but a few years ago I was in the States and somebody said pretty much that. The NHS is a socialist organization that he wouldn't have anything to do with on principle.
That said, when his home-made bullets jammed his gun, he did look down the barrel to see if he could see the source of the problem, then banged the butt off the ground to see if he could shift it.
The NHS is adequate if you're articulate, intelligent and pushy. If you don't really know what's going on and let them get on with it it is very shit indeed.
that frankly, is as a big a load of balls as the average American's view of the NHS. Last week, I was ambulanced into hospital at 4AM with a suspected heart attack. The paramedics gave me an ECG in the hotel lobby which indicated no to the heart attack, but as a portable unit, wasn't accurate enough to say for sure. Still, very reassuring. The service was excellent, from simple reassurance to treatment. I was introduced to the nurse responsible for my care and she regularly looked and asked if I was ok, did I need anything, etc. cups of tea and glasses of water were provided. It wasn't a heart attack, I'm not here because of the sterling efforts of the health service staff, but if it had been, or if it happens for real, there is nothing I wold change about the way I was treated.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, it has it's faults, and when it fails, which it can, being articulate and educated helps, but most of the time, you'll get the service you need without being arsey about it.
Its hard to see what they have against free healthcare for all citizens tbh.
They don't want government to control healthcare, as a matter of principle*.
* this is a generous way of looking at it..
Junkyard - lazarusi did nto really mena the NHS is shit - sorry.
Apology accepted on behalf of the, quite frankly, marvellous, if somewhat underfunded, NHS. 😉
I worked on a charity summercamp for inner city kids near boston most of the kids were on welfare of some sort
their access to basic healthcare was truly shocking; ringworm, untreated ear infections that stank, more serious blood infections, the nurse at the camp had her work cut out for her and the kids were genuinely excited to be getting antibiotics?!
Massachusetts has a relatively good social healthcare programme but it was a massive eye opener for me at the time
quite often the other staff wouldnt believe me when i explained this stuff was free back at home
Ive also worked with children in the uk places including harringey so I know that things can get bad here too, but at the bottom theres a big difference
One part of the country is fighting to be able to shoot each other, the other part is fighting to be able to heal each other. It seems the shooters are winning, and yet they still tell us this is the world's greatest nation.
And just to point out that if you need to go to A&E (ER) in the US, you'll be charged for it - if you don't have insurance (as many Americans don't) then you'll get treated but you will then be liable for the cost (though there are charity mechanisms to help with this sometimes).
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081001061228AAnUABl
AS such, you'll find people don't go to A&E even for things that we wouldn't even consider that a possibility. Horrendous situation for such a rich country but the prevailing opinion is that it's the person's fault for not paying for health insurance.
In a brilliant piece of political maneuvering the Republicans somehow managed to sell the concept that free healthcare meant that hospitals etc would decide who to treat and who not to and that people would DIE.
This somewhat fell apart when they wheeled Stephen Hawking out at some rally and for whatever reason stated, live on stage in front of thousands, 'take this guy for example, if he were British he would be dead by now'...
Cheers
Danny B
That's great Danny - hadn't heard that 🙂
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/hawking_british_and_alive/
As has been pointed out elsewhere, it has it's faults, and when it fails, which it can, being articulate and educated helps, but most of the time, you'll get the service you need without being arsey about it.
I think actual emergency service is good. Beyond that you need to be able to take control. You don't need to be arsey. All IME obviously.
Kimbers - the USA is over a Trillion dollars in debt. They may spend more than us on health care (but also have 6 times the population) - but like us they can't afford it - and despite them spending more than us they still have people suffering from and even dying of treatable conditions because they can't afford the drugs they need.
Canada might have an NHS system like ours - but their national debt has also soared in recent years. And the system they have on the contintent is not quite the same as the NHS - it is different - oh, and by the way, most of those countries are in shit loads of national debt. We may like to ignore the debt situation we're in, but its a reality the politicians have to deal with.
Not saying we should ditch the NHS or the americans shouldn't have, or deserve, Obamacare, but we have to find a better and sustainable way to finance these things, whilst still delivering the services to the public.
So, you think that adapting a healthcare model that'd cut spending by 66% while improving service would be "financial suicide" so tell me, what do you think they should do? Their current system's fantasticlly expensive, the far cheaper national alternative is apparently also too expensive...
but we have to find a better and sustainable way to finance these things
It's called taxation.
They may spend more than us on health care (but also have 6 times the population) - but like us they can't afford it
Oh FFS, how many times do people like you have to be told that the figures quoted are PER CAPITA, so it's irrelevant what their population is. Look it up. You might learn something. And define 'can't afford it'. Anything is affordable with political will and public support. They put a man on the moon for god's sake.
oh no wobbliscott my mortgage is a huuuuge debt, how can I end this madness, should we abandon the entire system???
no, its just debt ill pay it off in the end, or ill die either way its fine
Beyond that you need to be able to take control. You don't need to be arsey. All IME obviously.
My grandfather had Alzheimer's, which limited his ability to be articulate, demonstrate his education to it's fullest extent or "take control". He had years of treatment by the most dedicated teams of professionals even when he was being arsey and we, his family, found dealing with him difficult. Because that's what happens with Alzheimer's patients and bear in mind that mental health care is right at the back of the political priority list for NHS spending.
My grandmother lost her sight and spent the last few months of her life in a hospice. Again, the care she received was wonderful, making me proud of the NHS as an organisation.
Neither of these are part of the emergency services
Not saying we should ditch the NHS or the americans shouldn't have, or deserve, Obamacare, but we have to find a better and sustainable way to finance these things, whilst still delivering the services to the public.
For me the first thing I'd do is have a good hard look around at other things not to spend money on first. Like trident replacement in the UK or the $3-4 trillion or so the US annually spend on defence. I'd say the biggest 2 threats to an American or British life or well being is their personal health and the size of the national debt making the national infrastructure fall apart around us so would happily save a few quid on the military first before looking for ways to cut NHS/obamacare spending. Sure, look to change what you are spending the health pot on, it's a hugely complex beast that can always be organised differently, but don't dare make it smaller. The objective for reorganising should be to make it better not cheaper.
wobbliscott - Member
Kimbers - the USA is over a Trillion dollars in debt.
I'd hazard a guess that it's due to waging wars it cannot afford. Not treating sick people. Of course your opinion may differ.
The UK spends 8% of our GDP on healthcare.
The US spends 16%.
UK average life expectancy is 79 years, the US is 78.1
Clearly our NHS system is awful 😕
oh no wobbliscott my mortgage is a huuuuge debt, how can I end this madness, should we abandon the entire system???no, its just debt ill pay it off in the end, or ill die either way its fine
Take out another couple of mortgages then. And another. You won't pay it off then. Doesn't matter though, you'll die. Trouble is your children inherit the debt (national debt that is).
At some point you have to stop borrowing money.
The UK spends 8% of our GDP on healthcare.The US spends 16%.
UK average life expectancy is 79 years, the US is 78.1
Clearly our NHS system is awful
What's the life expectancy in the US for people with health cover? They're the ones objecting. You may find the NHS is awful in comparison (I have no idea, but it would be interesting).
They may spend more than us on health care (but also have 6 times the population) - but like us they can't afford it
Points and laughs
Your ability to dig a hole and then ignorantly jump in it is entertaining.As for cannot afford it [ is there nothing welfare related you dont say this lie to ?]we are the 7 th richest country in the world we can afford it easily - its a measure of your morality not your wallet.
Clearly the NHS delivers for a much cheaper price than the US model- well for those of us who can count.
The NHS is adequate if you're articulate, intelligent and pushy. If you don't really know what's going on and let them get on with it it is very shit indeed.
+1
If you don't really know what's going on and let them get on with it it is very shit indeed.
[i]"very shit"[/i] compared to what exactly?
Compared to US style private healthcare where letting them "get on with it" could bankrupt you for life?
"very shit" compared to what exactly?Compared to US style private healthcare where letting them "get on with it" could bankrupt you?
Very shit as in you'll die unless you insist there is something wrong with you and/or actions needs to be taken.
I'd just like to point out that having health insurance in the US doesn't mean you'll never have to pay. Insurance usually only covers a certain amount, the rest you have to find yourself. Most policies don't include childbirth either.
The NHS is not universally shit if you don't put pressure on them. They do often produce great care of their own accord. The nightmare stories are only a portion of all stories. However I don't know what proportion.
Even in a private system you still get bad diagnoses, bad doctors and bad treatment.
Very shit as in you'll die unless you insist there is something wrong with you and/or actions needs to be taken.
That's far from the norm.
That's far from the norm.
Not in my experience. I can list a whole heap of people who were fobbed off with excuses, and only after pushing and pushing, got the tests done that revealed the problem.
And would they all have died shortly after as 5thE suggests?
And would they all have been in a position to pay for those tests if they were not free?
I can understand the annoyance at having to insist and push for the correct diagnosis but when you look at the fact that they did get diagnosed and then ( presumably ) treated for free it doesn't look so bad does it?
By all means work to improve the system and it's flaws, but denouncing it as shit in favour of a system that is arguably shitter and even more flawed doesn't really make sense to me.
Not in my experience. I can list a whole heap of people who were fobbed off with excuses, and only after pushing and pushing, got the tests done that revealed the problem.
I can give you some counter stories, for balance.
My dad was fine, a routine test (that they didn't have to be persuaded to do) revealed early bowel cancer. They gave him great care, loads of information and were incredibly nice. They they operated on him and sorted him out well. They didn't have to be persuaded of anything.
Same happened to my uncle.
Not in my experience.
Well that proves it then! 😯
I blame
[img] 
[/img]
You still have to press healthcare professionals to do stuff in other systems, it's just that the reasons vary. In the US you have to pressure the insurance companies instead, and they are generally a lot harder to convince.
Very shit as in you'll die unless you insist there is something wrong with you and/or actions needs to be taken.
bollox. absolute and utter bollox.
I know of bad experiences, made worse by the fact that the people experiencing them were ill at the time (which is why they were dealing with the NHS), but overall, my experiences and those of the majority of people I know have been positive.
Interestingly, the people who are supporting the NHS are providing personal examples of how excellent the NHS is, whilst those critical of the NHs aren't. And I suspect that when those examples finally do arrive, they'll slightly further removed from [persona experience than mine or molgrips' examples.
One glaring aspect that is almost universally ignored in the debates is the fact that the PPACA addresses the insurance side of healthcare, but there is virtually nothing done to improve the provision side.
In simple terms, insurers are required to offer coverage and not deny anyone coverage because of pre-ex conditions. They're also required to work to a maximum profitablity level and any additional profit must be returned to customers. There are also caps on how much they can charge.
For the US public, they're now required to purchase health insurance. If they don't there are financial penalties and tax implications.
However for the US healthcare providers, they still have the ability to charge however much they want. There are no provisions limiting them on how much they charge for treating someone and subsequent cost to the insurer. This is a fundamental flaw within the PPACA so no one expects US healthcare costs to drop at all as the hospitals and doctors still need paid.
Having lived in the US I can definately say I would choose the UK system.
I found the excessive medicalisation to be infuriating. As one example (I have many), when my children went for immunisations the whole process took 4 hours. It started with a whole bunch of health tests performed by a nurse (eye, hearing, blood pressure etc). The children were already nervous about injections, so even these simple tests were daunting to them. We were then shown to a room where we waited to be seen by a doctor. He spent ages asking us basic medical questions that could have been easily asked in a questionarre before we even arrived. The kids sat there gradually becoming more petrified. He then left and then the nurse came back with a bucket load of injections, some of which I question were necessary (e.g. chicken pox). By this point my two young girls (age 2 and 4) were absolutely inconsolable with fear. To my shame I never stopped the process when I should. The children had to be pinned to the bed (physically restrained) as they each took 6 injections.
In contrast, the process in the UK took us 30 minutes. Our son was allowed to sit on his mother's lap as a nurse (no doctors) quickly gave the injections. He barely noticed.
The private US system is designed to mug them for money.
Well one died sadly about 9 months later. The rest have either used their works private healthcare insurance and got things sorted that route or are still waiting for appointments and further tests. In one case the NHS wouldn't authorise a UT scan, which within a week of the private care had been requested, performed, analysed and the required operation booked in.
If you push and use your connections then the NHS can be great, but stick to the system and wait for the appointment letter and it can be utter sh*t.
I don't want a US style healthcare system, but equally the NHS as it is, is far from perfect, and we could learn more from looking at systems in other EU countries.
As one example (I have many), when my children went for immunisations the whole process took 4 hours. It started with a whole bunch of health tests performed by a nurse (eye, hearing, blood pressure etc)
This is something else that's become apparent since knowing and talking to lots of Americans. The more they do to you, the more they can charge the insurance company for. Their system is designed around profit, either deliberately or accidentally. I think that the providers may think they are doing patients a favour by doing all these extra procedures, but they often aren't.
Our system like to save money, but sometimes this is in our interests. They focus a lot on prevention because it's in the NHS's and our interests. Conversely, prevention is NOT in medical companies interests in the US. I don't know if any of them are that cynical, however, but there's no impetus on them to prevent the condition in the first place.
For example, my in-laws - high cholesterol? Have some pills. Oh yeah, maybe lose some weight maybe, if you like, whatever.
The other benefit of the UK system is that it provides competition to the private UK health insurance. Nobody in the UK will pay $12k a year for healthcare when you can get it for 'free'.
And if you don't like the NHS, just get yourself a rather good value private insurance plan. Mine only costs £1300 a year for a family of 5.
And I don't resent subsidising the rest who choose to stick with NHS - I still use it myself (e.g. GP visits, childbirth, A&E etc).
Will that £1300 get you complete coverage, or will you be back on the NHS for anything really serious?
People should also remember it is the US sate which is in huge debt. there is still an enormous amount of privately held wealth in the US. Whether or not the US or UK can afford health care is a question of political will rather than absolute cost.
Not in my experience. I can list a whole heap of people who were fobbed off with excuses, and only after pushing and pushing, got the tests done that revealed the problem.
That's my experience too. Two people would have died, one did and another two were very dodgy situations.
Apart from the one who died, all were pushy so it wasn't a problem. Had she have been pushy, she'd have been fine (or at least would have stood a chance).
In conclusions, the NHS is adequate.
In conclusions, the NHS is [s]adequate[/s] variable
In conclusions, the NHS is variable but adequate if you're pushy
In conclusion, the standard of debate on STW is variable but adequate if you ignore other people's posts.
😉
And just for comparison, how many people do you know who have made use of the NHS and received 'adequate' service ( perhaps even more than once in their lives) and not said a word about it because it was just normal and expected?
Nobody thinks the NHS is perfect but a few bad examples are not indicative of 'the norm' as described earlier. Annoyingly more frequent than ideal maybe, but certainly not the norm.
Will that £1300 get you complete coverage, or will you be back on the NHS for anything really serious?
It's comprehensive cover with no yearly limit. It seems to cover everything you can think of. Obviously excluding child birth and A&E.
Maybe that's the government's new big idea: make the NHS just shit enough to get those of us who can afford it to pay for private healthcare.
Slightly OT, but i got a call from the PRU today asking me if id like one of their nice reps to visit my company to show how cheaply they could provide pivate medical insurance. I let him talk through his scrip then politely to him that as a company we were not interested and i felt that moraly it was wrong to que jump the current system, he replied that what would i do if i had something "untreatable" i replied "probably die i guess if its untreatable"..... He was foxed by that but didnt give up, he offered me treatments to help with the stopping of smoking (no one in the company smokes) and really seemed suprised that i thought it was wrong and that the NHS has, in my experience given me the medical care I need. Of course this wasn't entirely true and if you want to go private i havn't much of an issue but as im fully paid up on my NI contributions I'm going to stick with that!!
Seeing as we're citing anecdotes, can we cite the examples of American citizens with genetic disorders that are (effectively) denied healthcare cover (through extoritonate fees) and are forced into marriages to gain health cover thru the spouses employment cover!?
Or the no 1 cause of bankruptancy in the US due to medical bills racked up and insurance companies not paying out!?
You do sometimes have to be pushy to get necessary treatment in the NHS, but anyone who thinks that being charged by private companies at twice the current market rate, and then taking their insurance company to court just to try and get back some (not all) of that cost, is a better system... is probably doing it from an ideological standpoint, rather than a cost benefit analysis.
Re bad outcomes it is important to keep in mind that the NHS and private health care both deal with sick people who can for a variety of reasons be hard to diagnose and just occasionally will die anyway or develop a worse or different condition . The NHS probably deals with a wider range of illnesses and accidents so by definition and not fault will have a higher number of what are perceived to be bad outcomes.
My friends uncle went private for an opp that went wrong and then had to be transferred to NHS for the life saving intensive care.
My mum required an opp on each foot for New Labour statistical reasons the left foot was treated in a private hospital the right in an NHS one (a few months and miles apart)both opps went well and were performed by the same surgeon the only perceivable difference was the private hospital shut her in a single room with a tv and left her alone for hours the NHS put her on a ward and kept walking by and checking on her.
Having had the NHS assist in conception and delivery of my son I am a big fan . Having seen the staggering cost and overtreatment in the US I am not a fan of the US system .
The Misdiagnosis anecdotes above are concerning and should not be lightly dismissed but there is nothing to say that such incidents do not occur in the US where you can have the added insult of a correct diagnosis followed by years of fighting to get the insurance provider to accept that your treatment / need is covered by their policy .
Having seen the staggering cost and overtreatment in the US I am not a fan of the US system .
The Misdiagnosis anecdotes above are concerning and should not be lightly dismissed but there is nothing to say that such incidents do not occur in the US where you can have the added insult of a correct diagnosis followed by years of fighting to get the insurance provider to accept that your treatment / need is covered by their policy .
Does anyone actually believe that the answer to the NHS' faults is to replace it with a system that has to work in the best interests of its shareholders rather than its patients?
Maybe that's the government's new big idea: make the NHS just shit enough to get those of us who can afford it to pay for private healthcare.
I'm not sure if it's a government policy, but it's more like a drift over time where the well off will go private more and more. In the end we will end up with a 2 tier system through the backdoor. With the NHS in 20 years time left just for the poor, the old and as a last resort.
I'm not sure if it's a government policy, but it's more like a drift over time where the well off will go private more and more.
Out of interest, when do you think the NHS performed substantially better than it has done in recent years?
Generally the NHS do a sound job - I'm stating this without hard data 'though.
Currently I and my family do benefit from private healthcare and TBH I am grateful we have this - simply because (per Friday thread) it may have avoided a future issue.
From a caring for my follow humans standpoint, would I be happy with an NI increase or indeed a direct contribution to ensure that more get healthcare?
The answer is yes, but I am not currently burdened with what I deem unaffordable health insurance costs.
Spending on some other 'projects' needs to be seriously considered - high-speed rail; Trident replacement, etc.
The NHS is not 100% perfect but what about those systems (France?) which are benchmarked as more perfect - what could we learn and apply from those?
From a UK v US standpoint, I wonder that the % of income actual goes on tax, etc too?