Quizzes & Puzzles1 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.
Sqad, re cancer survival rates, do we/can we know if this is to do with treatment, or early detection? (ie perhaps more frequent checkups in the US?)
Clanad, horror stories tend to be exceptional, if not downright imaginary. I gather an American journal suggested somebody like Sr Stephen Hawking would simply be left to die in Britain if he fell ill (evidently under the impression that he was American). Dr Hawking replied that he had been ill, had been treated by the NHS, and was very happy with it.
That said, I can't get a straightforward visit to my GP in less than a week, which I think is poor. (Twenty years ago I could just walk in.) So for sudden pains people often go to hospital emergency departments instead, and endure the four-hour waits (I've never waited that long, but two hours is common). I have no problem with the idea of a 'socialist' health system but it doesn't seem to me to be well run.
Clanad, horror stories tend to be exceptional, if not downright imaginary. I gather an American journal suggested somebody like Sr Stephen Hawking would simply be left to die in Britain if he fell ill (evidently under the impression that he was American). Dr Hawking replied that he had been ill, had been treated by the NHS, and was very happy with it.
That said, I can't get a straightforward visit to my GP in less than a week, which I think is poor. (Twenty years ago I could just walk in.) So for sudden pains people often go to hospital emergency departments instead, and endure the four-hour waits (I've never waited that long, but two hours is common). I have no problem with the idea of a 'socialist' health system but it doesn't seem to me to be well run.
I haven't scrolled but to me this is a no brainer.
A lot of US health insurance is connected with work lose your job you have no cover.
Horror stories abound about people not being treated because they have no insurance, if even 10% of Micheal Moores film "sicko" is true I don't want to be part of a US style health "care" system.
We tend to take for granted what we have which is health care for all, what you have in the US is right wingers not wanting to help the "others".
Basicaly i'm alright jack - You can die. This insiduous thinking, in the land of the free is yet another reason why it is far from free.
Social medicine is a right and proper thing for any right and proper minded society, which is why most European countries have it in some form.
A lot of US health insurance is connected with work lose your job you have no cover.
Horror stories abound about people not being treated because they have no insurance, if even 10% of Micheal Moores film "sicko" is true I don't want to be part of a US style health "care" system.
We tend to take for granted what we have which is health care for all, what you have in the US is right wingers not wanting to help the "others".
Basicaly i'm alright jack - You can die. This insiduous thinking, in the land of the free is yet another reason why it is far from free.
Social medicine is a right and proper thing for any right and proper minded society, which is why most European countries have it in some form.
-- answer removed --
There is a simple answer to infant mortality figures Squad.
The US system provides an excellent service to those who can afford to pay.
A very large number get a poor service or none at all.
The debate in the US is one that centres around the question
"Why should the well off subsidise the less well off?"
Typically the US and Europe have very different answers to this.
I'm pretty certain that you are in a minority opinion in the UK.
However I am interested in how large or small that minority is and would be interested to hear from some of our traditional right wingers here as to whether they'd prefer a US system
The US system provides an excellent service to those who can afford to pay.
A very large number get a poor service or none at all.
The debate in the US is one that centres around the question
"Why should the well off subsidise the less well off?"
Typically the US and Europe have very different answers to this.
I'm pretty certain that you are in a minority opinion in the UK.
However I am interested in how large or small that minority is and would be interested to hear from some of our traditional right wingers here as to whether they'd prefer a US system
The statistics for the U.S. don't take into account several factors concerning the birth rate/mortality issue.
Firstly, access to the system does count for a percentage, especially among African Americans who have even a higher birth rate/mortality issue... 10% of live births fail to continue life within that group. This has to do, apparently, with the numbers of very young mothers, lack of pre-natal care and, to some extent, drug use. I'm sure there are those that will see raciism in the statistics, but that's all I can cite.
Additionally, the U.S. has the highest rate of premature births through advances in medicine/procedures. Often, those do not survive but are counted as live births. Secondly, the U.S. has the highest rate of births called "Super Twins", which are multiple births of 3, 4 or even more. Again, for better or worse this is a sign of advanced medical care for those that seek artificaially induced pregnancies.
It's been said by our canadian friends that the health care system works well if you are healthy. Meaning, those with a sore throat, headache or other "normal" malady probably get good, free service from the family practicioners. However, it becomes an entirely different story if one needs a specialist or advanced care. The elderly are screened for cost/benefit considerations and are denied care in some, perhaps many cases.
Contd.
Firstly, access to the system does count for a percentage, especially among African Americans who have even a higher birth rate/mortality issue... 10% of live births fail to continue life within that group. This has to do, apparently, with the numbers of very young mothers, lack of pre-natal care and, to some extent, drug use. I'm sure there are those that will see raciism in the statistics, but that's all I can cite.
Additionally, the U.S. has the highest rate of premature births through advances in medicine/procedures. Often, those do not survive but are counted as live births. Secondly, the U.S. has the highest rate of births called "Super Twins", which are multiple births of 3, 4 or even more. Again, for better or worse this is a sign of advanced medical care for those that seek artificaially induced pregnancies.
It's been said by our canadian friends that the health care system works well if you are healthy. Meaning, those with a sore throat, headache or other "normal" malady probably get good, free service from the family practicioners. However, it becomes an entirely different story if one needs a specialist or advanced care. The elderly are screened for cost/benefit considerations and are denied care in some, perhaps many cases.
Contd.
Contd.
One small step would aleviate a lot of the concern here: The ability to buy insurance outside of State lines. As it is now, the same coverage from the same companies costs more in different States due, I suspect to costs incurred in a given State.
jno, I would agree horror stories do abound, but many of them, especially in the current debate are well founded. People, use to their freedoms here, simply don't want an official or a panel deciding for them the treatment they can get. In Canada, for example, it's illegal to own or try to but private insurance. Our own proximity to Canada provides ample opportunity to see the Canadians who travel to the U.S. for services.
Our tax rate is significantly less here. To increase that rate doesn't seem to affect medical treatment for the disadvantaged, as shown with the Medicare debacle.
I would agree with Dave to the extent that private insurance should be more portable... lose your job you could still pay for the coverage you want and take it with you to the next job. Latest statistics indicate 84% of citizens are happy with the system as it is. The costs of increases now under discussion are so significant that our grandchildren will still be under its burden, with no real hope of covering everyone...
I do disagree that "right wingers" don't want to help others. Those of a conservative stance are among the highest in charitable giving, especially compared to the liberal "left wingers"...
One small step would aleviate a lot of the concern here: The ability to buy insurance outside of State lines. As it is now, the same coverage from the same companies costs more in different States due, I suspect to costs incurred in a given State.
jno, I would agree horror stories do abound, but many of them, especially in the current debate are well founded. People, use to their freedoms here, simply don't want an official or a panel deciding for them the treatment they can get. In Canada, for example, it's illegal to own or try to but private insurance. Our own proximity to Canada provides ample opportunity to see the Canadians who travel to the U.S. for services.
Our tax rate is significantly less here. To increase that rate doesn't seem to affect medical treatment for the disadvantaged, as shown with the Medicare debacle.
I would agree with Dave to the extent that private insurance should be more portable... lose your job you could still pay for the coverage you want and take it with you to the next job. Latest statistics indicate 84% of citizens are happy with the system as it is. The costs of increases now under discussion are so significant that our grandchildren will still be under its burden, with no real hope of covering everyone...
I do disagree that "right wingers" don't want to help others. Those of a conservative stance are among the highest in charitable giving, especially compared to the liberal "left wingers"...
jake....all your points are well taken, but you seem to be wandering off the point.
A U.S system is not up for consideration in the UK.
The U.S are debating whether or not they want a NHS lookalike.
My only point about the NHS, nothing at all to do with the question, is how long we can let the NHS haemorrhage money without reforming it.
Traditional left or right wingers have nothing to do with it.
A U.S system is not up for consideration in the UK.
The U.S are debating whether or not they want a NHS lookalike.
My only point about the NHS, nothing at all to do with the question, is how long we can let the NHS haemorrhage money without reforming it.
Traditional left or right wingers have nothing to do with it.
Thanks to Clanad for setting out the main points in the US debate. Is it me, or have the Press over here been pathetic at explaining what Obama is actually trying to achieve with these changes? The whole way this has been reported over here focuses on the shouting matches occurring between the opposing factions without even bothering to explain the major points of the proposed scheme.
I suspect (without any evidence) that this is about the haves and the have nots. For the haves, the existing scheme works fine - and the haves take the initiative to ensure when they get old they have enough in the pot to continue to buy services without resorting to Medicaid.
The have nots don't benefit at all, and the inevitable truth of what Obama is doing involves extracting finance in some way (be it through direct or indriect taxation) from the haves to pay for some services for all citizens. Being a Robin Hood in 2009 inevitably makes you unpopular but I trust that he succeeds - in terms of social justice and fairness in a developed country.
I suspect (without any evidence) that this is about the haves and the have nots. For the haves, the existing scheme works fine - and the haves take the initiative to ensure when they get old they have enough in the pot to continue to buy services without resorting to Medicaid.
The have nots don't benefit at all, and the inevitable truth of what Obama is doing involves extracting finance in some way (be it through direct or indriect taxation) from the haves to pay for some services for all citizens. Being a Robin Hood in 2009 inevitably makes you unpopular but I trust that he succeeds - in terms of social justice and fairness in a developed country.
Probaly true Berti until their children and grandchildren have to pay for it to the tune of 1.5 Trillion (with a "T") U.S. dollars over ten years.... budget deficits in the Trillion dollar range as far as the eye can see.
It's estimated that the public system would cost nerly 75% of gross national product (GDP, value of all goods and services produced) within 10 years... and still several million people that won't be covered.
Keep in mind, the proposal is to do away with Medicare/Medicaid once the system is fully implemented. Where will the medical professionals come from to take care of those numbers of subscribers?
Is it not true that if all the waste, fraud and abuse were to be removed from your own system, it would be truly affordable for all? This isn't to make this into a slinging match for or against the U.K., but there is a differing philosphy that has nothing to do with selfishness but rather, self reliance, which has been part and parcel of the U.S psyche since before the Battle of Bunker Hill...
Keep the government out of my life except for those few things required of it in the U.S. Constitution...
It's estimated that the public system would cost nerly 75% of gross national product (GDP, value of all goods and services produced) within 10 years... and still several million people that won't be covered.
Keep in mind, the proposal is to do away with Medicare/Medicaid once the system is fully implemented. Where will the medical professionals come from to take care of those numbers of subscribers?
Is it not true that if all the waste, fraud and abuse were to be removed from your own system, it would be truly affordable for all? This isn't to make this into a slinging match for or against the U.K., but there is a differing philosphy that has nothing to do with selfishness but rather, self reliance, which has been part and parcel of the U.S psyche since before the Battle of Bunker Hill...
Keep the government out of my life except for those few things required of it in the U.S. Constitution...
Suggest you all watch the film Sicko if you want to see how bad the US system is.
(This film is on Sky at the moment)
The US system include private hospitals paying for taxis to remove patients who cant pay and dumping them in the street outside city centre charity hospitals.
And if you cant afford insurance (or are so ill the insurance company wont take you) then if you are ill ity is hard to get treatment.
We in the UK dont realise how lucky we are.
(This film is on Sky at the moment)
The US system include private hospitals paying for taxis to remove patients who cant pay and dumping them in the street outside city centre charity hospitals.
And if you cant afford insurance (or are so ill the insurance company wont take you) then if you are ill ity is hard to get treatment.
We in the UK dont realise how lucky we are.
To all who oppose the introduction of the so-called 'socialised' healthcare in the US, take a look at this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9JmEHsCv4c
in the richest country in the Western world!
And it took an Englishman to found it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9JmEHsCv4c
in the richest country in the Western world!
And it took an Englishman to found it.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News32 mins ago
News33 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
ChatterBank45 mins ago
