If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News1 min ago
us or nhs
35 Answers
Who would rather have a US style healthcare system
To help decide:
The NHS budget is roughly all of the National Insurance take - so that would be entirely abolished
The average US familly spends around $3,000 a year on health care. The average familly insurance paid for by an employer is $12,000 a year.
The US has the highest infant mortality in the Western World
Waiting times are less than in the UK
16% do not have or cannot obtain insurance.
So would anybody like to have the US system or is the NHS something we all love as much as Cameron and Brown claim to?
To help decide:
The NHS budget is roughly all of the National Insurance take - so that would be entirely abolished
The average US familly spends around $3,000 a year on health care. The average familly insurance paid for by an employer is $12,000 a year.
The US has the highest infant mortality in the Western World
Waiting times are less than in the UK
16% do not have or cannot obtain insurance.
So would anybody like to have the US system or is the NHS something we all love as much as Cameron and Brown claim to?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
With the amount of stuff I have had done in hospital over the last few years I would say the NHS is excellent.
I have had no problems worth mentioning.
Also let's be honest you only ever get the bad stuff about the NHS in the media and whilst I am the first to admit that a lot needs to change, I have found it to be excellent.
I can't afford private medical insurance and as likely wouldn't be able to if I lived in the US.
I have had no problems worth mentioning.
Also let's be honest you only ever get the bad stuff about the NHS in the media and whilst I am the first to admit that a lot needs to change, I have found it to be excellent.
I can't afford private medical insurance and as likely wouldn't be able to if I lived in the US.
Both my partner and I are not working. He has been ill for 7 years with no prospect of full recovery. I have recently been made redundant. I guess if we were on the us system we would have to cancel our premium as we could not afford it. No insurance--little treatment. Stick with what we have. They just need to get rid of the non medical trained highly paid managers and let the top doctors decide how the money is spent..
The average US family spends around $3,000 a year on health care
Each working citizen provides 12% of his or her income tax to the NHS�approx �1200 per year.
If I were a middle-income American living in Seattle or Chicago, I could almost certainly rely on superior care than if I lived in Birmingham or Newcastle.
But whatever the failings and excesses of the American system, the statistics suggest that it delivers better outcomes than the NHS when dealing with serious illnesses. I say 'suggest' because we should always be wary of comparing figures compiled in different ways in different countries.
In treating almost every cancer, America apparently does better than Britain, sometimes appreciably so. According to a study in Lancet Oncology last year, 91.9 per cent of American men with prostate cancer were still alive after five years, compared with only 51.1per cent in Britain.
The same publication suggests that 90.1 per cent of women in the U.S. diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2002 survived for at least five years, as against 77.8 per cent in Britain.
So it goes on. Overall the outcome for cancer patients is better in America than in this country. So, too, it is for victims of heart attacks, though the difference is less marked.
If you are suspicious of comparative statistics, consult any American who has encountered the NHS. Often they cannot believe what has happened to them - the squalor, and looming threat of MRSA; the long waiting lists, and especially the official target that patients in 'accident and emergency' should be expected to wait for no more than four - four! - hours; the sense exuded by some medical staff that they are doing you a favour by taking down your personal details.
Each working citizen provides 12% of his or her income tax to the NHS�approx �1200 per year.
If I were a middle-income American living in Seattle or Chicago, I could almost certainly rely on superior care than if I lived in Birmingham or Newcastle.
But whatever the failings and excesses of the American system, the statistics suggest that it delivers better outcomes than the NHS when dealing with serious illnesses. I say 'suggest' because we should always be wary of comparing figures compiled in different ways in different countries.
In treating almost every cancer, America apparently does better than Britain, sometimes appreciably so. According to a study in Lancet Oncology last year, 91.9 per cent of American men with prostate cancer were still alive after five years, compared with only 51.1per cent in Britain.
The same publication suggests that 90.1 per cent of women in the U.S. diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2002 survived for at least five years, as against 77.8 per cent in Britain.
So it goes on. Overall the outcome for cancer patients is better in America than in this country. So, too, it is for victims of heart attacks, though the difference is less marked.
If you are suspicious of comparative statistics, consult any American who has encountered the NHS. Often they cannot believe what has happened to them - the squalor, and looming threat of MRSA; the long waiting lists, and especially the official target that patients in 'accident and emergency' should be expected to wait for no more than four - four! - hours; the sense exuded by some medical staff that they are doing you a favour by taking down your personal details.
Most Americans, let's face it, are used to much higher standards of healthcare than we enjoy, even after the doubling of the NHS budget under New Labour. Of course, the U.S. is a somewhat richer country, but I doubt its superior health service can be mainly attributed to this advantage.
An increasing number of us take out private health insurance, and many others would like to do so if they could only afford to, which hardly indicates unbounded confidence in the NHS.
And yet, despite its shortcomings, we are reluctant to think about changing it, and any politician who suggested doing so might as well slit his own throat.
An increasing number of us take out private health insurance, and many others would like to do so if they could only afford to, which hardly indicates unbounded confidence in the NHS.
And yet, despite its shortcomings, we are reluctant to think about changing it, and any politician who suggested doing so might as well slit his own throat.
Alas Samuelcat a lifetime spent with a scalpel and stethescope is no training for balancing a budget, making sure that drugs and supplies are available and decreasing waiting times.
They are very different skills - a bit like putting Michael Schumaker in charge of the BMW assembly line!
But that's another topic - they still have hospital managers and administrators in US hospitals and they get paid for by insurance premiums
They are very different skills - a bit like putting Michael Schumaker in charge of the BMW assembly line!
But that's another topic - they still have hospital managers and administrators in US hospitals and they get paid for by insurance premiums
Squad
Private healthcare insurance in the UK is nowhere near what it costs in the UK the NHS picks up so much of the slack.
Insurance in the UK is almost "Top up" insurance for a better standard
And yes the treatment enjoyed by those at the top end of the US system is much better.
But what about those lower down?
What about those who are older?
Still I was looking to get a feeling for numbers on each side rather than a real debate
I guess you're one for the Anti-NHS side then.
Private healthcare insurance in the UK is nowhere near what it costs in the UK the NHS picks up so much of the slack.
Insurance in the UK is almost "Top up" insurance for a better standard
And yes the treatment enjoyed by those at the top end of the US system is much better.
But what about those lower down?
What about those who are older?
Still I was looking to get a feeling for numbers on each side rather than a real debate
I guess you're one for the Anti-NHS side then.
The NHS is a non-profit service provided, in essence, by the government. Absolutely everyone, including foreign visitors, have an automatic right to it based on need - no checking of ability to pay before treatment. Those who are disadvantaged do not have to pay anything, including those who have never earned any type of income. In the US millions of people have no recourse to medical treatment unless through charity because they are too disadvantaged to have (private) insurance yet too well off to qualify for any government scheme (or so I am led to believe). Government schemes provide medical care on a shoestring budget and at facilities that are worse than the NHS norm. The (Republican/business) lobbyists against reform say they are for freedom of choice in the healthcare arena. Those who don't have the money already have no choice at all nor will they unless a universal right to healthcare is established. In the UK (and other European countries) people can use the (mandatorily funded) public health system or join a private medical scheme if they have the money. The crucial difference between Europe and the US is that in Europe no-one misses out completely. Public healthcare services may not consistently provide the most successful outcome but which would you choose at birth: The lifelong right to be treated as a matter of course no matter what your illness or your means, or take the chance that you will do so well that you will constantly be in employment and be able to afford the most comprehensive insurance.....and....that the company you choose will not simply refuse to pay for treatment if/when the chips are down ? The US has the world's most expensive healthcare system by far and that translates into very lucrative profits for insurance and pharmaceutical companies, plus nice bungs for politicians legally on the take..
daffy, all the Americans would have to do in counteracting your comment would be to mention the old folk starving to death in squalor in Stafford. We must keep to generalisations if possible.
Jake...no I am not anti NHS just anti NHS in it's present form as is most of the consultants who work in the NHS.
How many times have we seen over the years, the slogan from one Political party..NHS, THE ENVY OF THE WORLD"
Oddly enough, this seems to have disappeared over the last decade for clearly obvious reasons......it isn't.
No other country has followed the same path as the UK and the conservative Americans don't want to either.
The NHS has to change, but which Political Party is ready to cut i'ts own Political throat?
Jake...no I am not anti NHS just anti NHS in it's present form as is most of the consultants who work in the NHS.
How many times have we seen over the years, the slogan from one Political party..NHS, THE ENVY OF THE WORLD"
Oddly enough, this seems to have disappeared over the last decade for clearly obvious reasons......it isn't.
No other country has followed the same path as the UK and the conservative Americans don't want to either.
The NHS has to change, but which Political Party is ready to cut i'ts own Political throat?
I'm sure you know, jake, your question is the center of a serious, usually uncivil debate at the moment here in the U.S.
The central question surrounds some statistics... for example your quote of 16% uninsured. Closer examination reveals the figure to be more nearly 7% when those that simply choose not to have insurance are deducted as well as other factors. Even those have unfettered access to Emergency Room, free care at any hospital that accepts any form of government funding.
We see many patients coming to the U.S. from Canada which has nearly (insofar as I can see) a duplicate of your NHS. Few if any U.S. residents go to Canada for care. My last visit to our clinic/hospital and discussions with medical field friends indicates nearly as many Canadian doctors in service as U.S. The Canadian Docs really don't like the government run system.
Medicare/Medicaid is a goverenment run health care system for senior citizens, 65 years of age and up. It's a disaster and has been in business for about 20 years. Long lines, small payments to Dr.s and is nearly broke... general dissapointment.
The horror stories we hear and see documented about Canada and U.K. revolve around the rationed health care with emphasis on denial of procedures for the elderly based on the government's decision on quality of life versus cost. It only stands to reason that when a service is free it will be flooded with demand unless rationed.
One thing we never hear about as a cost control here is the capping of negligence law suit awards. Dr.s here do prescribe a lot of probably uneccessary procedures but do so to cover themselves from law suits. The Tort Law lobby here in the U.S. is far to powerful and influential...
The central question surrounds some statistics... for example your quote of 16% uninsured. Closer examination reveals the figure to be more nearly 7% when those that simply choose not to have insurance are deducted as well as other factors. Even those have unfettered access to Emergency Room, free care at any hospital that accepts any form of government funding.
We see many patients coming to the U.S. from Canada which has nearly (insofar as I can see) a duplicate of your NHS. Few if any U.S. residents go to Canada for care. My last visit to our clinic/hospital and discussions with medical field friends indicates nearly as many Canadian doctors in service as U.S. The Canadian Docs really don't like the government run system.
Medicare/Medicaid is a goverenment run health care system for senior citizens, 65 years of age and up. It's a disaster and has been in business for about 20 years. Long lines, small payments to Dr.s and is nearly broke... general dissapointment.
The horror stories we hear and see documented about Canada and U.K. revolve around the rationed health care with emphasis on denial of procedures for the elderly based on the government's decision on quality of life versus cost. It only stands to reason that when a service is free it will be flooded with demand unless rationed.
One thing we never hear about as a cost control here is the capping of negligence law suit awards. Dr.s here do prescribe a lot of probably uneccessary procedures but do so to cover themselves from law suits. The Tort Law lobby here in the U.S. is far to powerful and influential...
Clanad......a balanced answer from you....thanks.
Litigation is high also in the UK and Drs in the UK are covered. However in Private Practice, depending upon the speciality a Dr. may pay up to �10,000 a year to insure against litigation.
In the UK we talk a lot about the 2tier system and quote the U.S, one level for the rich and a much lower level of care for the poor.
However in the UK there has ALWAYS been a 2 tier system.....NHS if you are poor and private health care if you are rich, the advantage if being private is that you jump the queue for operations, you see whichever consultant you want to see , your operation done when you want it and a single comfortable hospital room.
Clanad...the UK public have only known NHS, nothing to compare it with and they are not going to change.
Litigation is high also in the UK and Drs in the UK are covered. However in Private Practice, depending upon the speciality a Dr. may pay up to �10,000 a year to insure against litigation.
In the UK we talk a lot about the 2tier system and quote the U.S, one level for the rich and a much lower level of care for the poor.
However in the UK there has ALWAYS been a 2 tier system.....NHS if you are poor and private health care if you are rich, the advantage if being private is that you jump the queue for operations, you see whichever consultant you want to see , your operation done when you want it and a single comfortable hospital room.
Clanad...the UK public have only known NHS, nothing to compare it with and they are not going to change.
Disagree squad
I work with a large number of people who are here from most European countries and a fair few from the US and Canada.
Most are quite positive about the NHS.
Of course we are based outside of London where there is a lot of pressure on the system - that may be a factor.
I'd still like to know why such a wonderful system spending so much money delivers an infant mortality rate below that in Cuba though
I work with a large number of people who are here from most European countries and a fair few from the US and Canada.
Most are quite positive about the NHS.
Of course we are based outside of London where there is a lot of pressure on the system - that may be a factor.
I'd still like to know why such a wonderful system spending so much money delivers an infant mortality rate below that in Cuba though
