The British NHS (unemployment, insurance, cost, leader)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Britain has the best doctors India has to offer...
Nothing wrong with the NHS.
Not sure we have specifically just Indian Dcotors, there are lots of nationalities working in our health service partcuarly in diverse cities such as London.
I should imagine the same is true in NYC and other parts of the US.
In terms of Universal Healtrhcare, it started in 1948, so it's fairly recent, before the NHS Healthcare was subject to affordability and you can read varying acciunts of how the poor lived and died in the works of writers of the time, such as Charles Dickens or George Orwell.
I agree with the concept of Universal Healthcare, and there is political consenus on the issue of Universal Halthcare in the UK. The main difference in political ideology in the UK being how much private involvement there should be within the NHS. The political Right 'The Conservatives' would like to see greater private sector involvement, whilst the more left wing 'Labour Party' would like to see the NHS largely continue as a state run organisation with only moderate private sector involvement.
The author (who has lived under both systems) talks about the negatives of dealing with private insurance for a bit, then reflects on it after moving to the U.K.:
Quote:
And yet ... There is another side to the American healthcare system that any fair-minded assessment must include. Mine certainly should because [my son] benefits from it every day. There is a company based in New England that makes his life a million times more enjoyable than it would otherwise be. The company makes a special kind of insulin pump that has no tubes. Sam forgets it is there. In California he went kayaking with it on.
Guys, as the Americans would say, this company is not a charity. It is run for profit. In fact, I saw it tipped recently as a smart move for investors playing the markets. In other words, the same profit motive that is such an upsetting part of the insurance industry... leads to innovation that, in the UK, just does not exist...
So to spell it out: the British system provides the basic care and does it with no fuss and no cost to the hard-pressed family. Having a child with type 1 diabetes will make you sadder, perhaps wiser, but it will not make you poorer. And, medically, Sam is as well looked after here as he would be in any fancy American hospital.
But American technology and zest for lifestyle improvements in the area of diabetes, as in every other area of human endeavour (a zest born out of zest for profit), add something to Sam's life. That something is denied to those who depend wholly on the NHS...
[Obama's] dream for America's health service is that it resembles the NHS when it comes to fairness. Test strips for all who need them.
But he claims as well that the best of the American system - the innovation and the choices available to well-insured Americans - will not be put in jeopardy.
Is that a realistic dream? This is the question at the heart of America's debate.
The author (who has lived under both systems) talks about the negatives of dealing with private insurance for a bit, then reflects on it after moving to the U.K.:
Insulin pumps are readily available on the NHS for diabetes sufferers and cystic fibrosis sufferers.
What gets me about such stories from the Daily Mail, is that this guy isn't poor and can afford to insure himself and family with private health insurance in the UK or take his son to Harley Street, why moan about the British NHS, if he likes private healthcare so much we have it in the UK. In terms of inovation Britain has a history of medical innovation, we even invented vaccines, yes that was Edward Jenner who discovered Cow Pox cured Small Pox leading to the first vaccination programme.
Take your kid to one of these if you don't like the NHS -
Wasn't trying to infer that the American health care system is perfect; we all know it's not. I think the problem many Americans have with going to a UK-style system is the fear that under total government control, government will screw it up like it does everything else.
Not only is the American health srvice far from perfect, it bankrupts American's, doesn't give millions here health cover and is more expensive to run per capita than Govt Funded Health Systems.
There is such a huge misconception here regarding how much control a Govt has over a Govt. funded UHC. In America today there is far more control of our health system by the private Insurance Companies here than there would ever be by the Govt. with a UHC.
Take the NHS, for example, The Govt. funds the NHS and the local health authorities control the running of the system. The Medical proffesionals decide on you treatments etc NOT the Govt.
The Govt does take funding seriously and are always trying to improve efficiency and stop wasteful spending. In this respect the UK has a board called N.I.C.E. National Institute for Clinical Excellence.........Who make sure that drugs for example that are not as efficient or better than less expensive drugs are not just handed out when cheaper, generic or othe types of drugs can be used...... National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Too many Doctors here multi test people when not needed or prescribe expensive drugs that work no better than cheaper drugs etc and this is bringing costs way up and also your premiums... for the sake of Profits.
The NHS is extremely successful, treats every single person in the UK and visitors and even though under huge strain from illegal immigrants etc , still gives outstanding health care.............. Please get away from this silly brainwashing here that a UHC is dictated to by the Govt.. it isn't.
Not sure we have specifically just Indian Dcotors, there are lots of nationalities working in our health service partcuarly in diverse cities such as London.
I should imagine the same is true in NYC and other parts of the US.
In terms of Universal Healtrhcare, it started in 1948, so it's fairly recent, before the NHS Healthcare was subject to affordability and you can read varying acciunts of how the poor lived and died in the works of writers of the time, such as Charles Dickens or George Orwell.
I agree with the concept of Universal Healthcare, and there is political consenus on the issue of Universal Halthcare in the UK. The main difference in political ideology in the UK being how much private involvement there should be within the NHS. The political Right 'The Conservatives' would like to see greater private sector involvement, whilst the more left wing 'Labour Party' would like to see the NHS largely continue as a state run organisation with only moderate private sector involvement.
The Conservatives have always tried to get private companies involved in the day to day running of Govt. Systems. Very few attempts at this have worked.
The NHS is always willing to try something new for the best outcome of the Patients and have indeed, in the past, tried the private sector to see if it would increase efficiency and cut costs. I remember quite a few years ago, a Hospital that a friend of mine was a patient in tried using a private company for patients meals........ the patients ended up with a choice between a sandwich or soup for evening dinner...... complete failure.
As far as having Indian Doctors in the NHS.... yes we have Indian Doctors, British Doctors, South African Doctors, Australian Doctors and American Doctors treating patients. Not sure what the poster thought he was getting at? Oh well i'm sure someone told him that the NHS was overun with Indian Doctors............
The Conservatives have always tried to get private companies involved in the day to day running of Govt. Systems. Very few attempts at this have worked.
The NHS is always willing to try something new for the best outcome of the Patients and have indeed, in the past, tried the private sector to see if it would increase efficiency and cut costs. I remember quite a few years ago, a Hospital that a friend of mine was a patient in tried using a private company for patients meals........ the patients ended up with a choice between a sandwich or soup for evening dinner...... complete failure.
As far as having Indian Doctors in the NHS.... yes we have Indian Doctors, British Doctors, South African Doctors, Australian Doctors and American Doctors treating patients. Not sure what the poster thought he was getting at? Oh well i'm sure someone told him that the NHS was overun with Indian Doctors............
The current Controversial NHS Healthcare Reforms in the new Health and Social Care Act 2012 are aimed at increasing private sector participation and giving GP's greater powers to commision services from the private sector.
Obviously this is an emotive issue and there has been a good deal of opposition to the proposals.
The main pints of the new Health and Social Care Act, the Department of Health (DH) being to -
• Give new consortiums of GPs across England the task of commissioning the healthcare they deem appropriate for their patients, and control over the budgets.
• Make the NHS more accountable to patients and the public by establishing Healthwatch, a new independent body that can look into complaints and scrutinise the performance of local health providers.
• Compel all hospitals in England to become foundation trust hospitals – that is, semi-independent of Whitehall control with, for example, the freedom to earn money by treating certain numbers of private patients.
Around half already have that status. Growing numbers have acquired FT status since Tony Blair was accused of breaking up the NHS by introducing the concept
• Improve public health by establishing a new body, called Public Health England, to improve public health and reduce health inequalities between the richest and poorest.
• Cut the bureaucracy of the NHS by abolishing the 150 or so primary care trusts (PCTs) and 10 strategic health authorities by 2013, slashing NHS management costs by 45%, and reducing the number of arm's length bodies, or quangos, such as the Health Protection Agency and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
Not only is the American health srvice far from perfect, it bankrupts American's, doesn't give millions here health cover and is more expensive to run per capita than Govt Funded Health Systems.
There is such a huge misconception here regarding how much control a Govt has over a Govt. funded UHC. In America today there is far more control of our health system by the private Insurance Companies here than there would ever be by the Govt. with a UHC.
Take the NHS, for example, The Govt. funds the NHS and the local health authorities control the running of the system. The Medical proffesionals decide on you treatments etc NOT the Govt.
The Govt does take funding seriously and are always trying to improve efficiency and stop wasteful spending. In this respect the UK has a board called N.I.C.E. National Institute for Clinical Excellence.........Who make sure that drugs for example that are not as efficient or better than less expensive drugs are not just handed out when cheaper, generic or othe types of drugs can be used...... National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Too many Doctors here multi test people when not needed or prescribe expensive drugs that work no better than cheaper drugs etc and this is bringing costs way up and also your premiums... for the sake of Profits.
The NHS is extremely successful, treats every single person in the UK and visitors and even though under huge strain from illegal immigrants etc , still gives outstanding health care.............. Please get away from this silly brainwashing here that a UHC is dictated to by the Govt.. it isn't.
I wasn't trying to say that your NHC was dictated to by the government--just that governments in general tend to screw up everything they get involved in and the US is especially bad about that.
The FDA is a monstrous bureaucracy in this country that is in bed with Big Pharma and has a long history of trying to stamp out everything that might be perceived as a threat to the big money interests in the health care sector. Are alternative treatments readily available in the UK for people who want them and can pay for them? Does the UK allow even acupuncture to be practiced there? In this country there has been a decades long effort to control food and herbal supplements and the battle still goes on. Fortunately, we still have access to them, thanks to the efforts of sympathetic legislators. Although they are available, manufacturers cannot make any claims for them on their labels or websites.
About 25 years ago a Scottish friend of mine had to wait 7 months before she could get an appointment with a doctor for a tumor growing on her head. It was melanoma and she died within a few months. I hope things have improved since then.
This was due to the then tory government trying to dismantle the system through underfunding. Labour improved things to the point where we were almost on par with mainland Europe (i.e. France, Germany) sadly the tories are back to their old tricks and are currently privatising the system through the back door.
This was due to the then tory government trying to dismantle the system through underfunding. Labour improved things to the point where we were almost on par with mainland Europe (i.e. France, Germany) sadly the tories are back to their old tricks and are currently privatising the system through the back door.
edit: I'm not a Labour supporter btw.
I take it, then, that universal health care in the UK has a tortured history that took many decades to iron out. I think that many people in this country are afraid to jump into UHC for the same reason......it will be chaotic for the first 50 years before things settle down and many people will not receive the treatment they now have access to because of bureaucratic mismanagement.
This was due to the then tory government trying to dismantle the system through underfunding. Labour improved things to the point where we were almost on par with mainland Europe (i.e. France, Germany) sadly the tories are back to their old tricks and are currently privatising the system through the back door.
edit: I'm not a Labour supporter btw.
I think the Tories ringfenced health spending as a percentage of GDP until after the next election.
The problem is treatments are becoming more expensive as is prssure on health services.
It was estimated that by 2021 Cancer Treatments due to new technology and drugs could be over 60% more expensive, and whilst this bodes badly for tax payers, I shouldn't imagine it sits easily with those who have private health insurance and are going to see premiums rocket.
I think both the American and UK Systems have problems, but the UK System is at least cheaper and offers better value from not having too much private input. Private input being mainly about profits and shareholders at the end of the day.
The UK System is at least mainly funded by taxes, rather than individual premiums, and as such involves a lot less worry with regard to premiums and small print, and whilst the NHS is not perfect, it is a decent health care system.
There are going to have to be tough choices in coming decades in relation to a lot of health systems, but I think the NHS is one of the better and most efficient systems in it's present form. Indeed it accounts for over 8% of GDP rather than the 16% US Health Care accounts for.
Last edited by Mulhall; 05-04-2012 at 04:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
