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.
Link won't work but it's an article by Forbes that can be found searching "Forbes Britian's version of Medicare for All struggling"
"Common care" for people in Britian diagnosed with cancer is considered 62 days. Imagine having anything above Stage 1 cancer and being told that you have to wait 62 days to start treatment because there aren't enough doctors available. Sounds like de facto rationing of care. So what if people with an aggressive form of cancer become terminal before between the time they're diagnosed and they start receiving treatment. At least everyone now has "access" to the same level of "care"
Keep in mind their system in under intense strain and struggling to stay afloat with just under 67 million residents...or roughly one fifth of the 327 million residents in the U.S.
With 5 times the number of residents just imagine how much worse the same issues will be in this country. Yet Democrats are bound and determined to implement a similar system here in America. Sounds awesome
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19459
Firstly the UK doesn't have medicare for all, it has a national health system which is seperated in to NHS England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales and Health and Social Care for Northern Ireland, this is further seperated in to local area NHS Trusts. The money is applied for through central government via taxes for healthcare and via local government for social care.
The UK also has private health care and insurance, however the trouble with private healthcare is that it becomes more expensive the older you get and the more coverage you require, and the older you become the more likely you are to develop serious illness such as cancer.
The UK NHS is receiving extra funding and has plans in place in terms of a new strategy to reduce waiting times, with extra funding and resources, however if you wish you can take our private health ininsurance or pay to go private.
However the NHS remans very popular throughout the UK, and the debate is largely around resources than in terms of replacing a much loved system. As for private healthcare it is generally cheaper in the UK because private hospitals don't rend to deal with accidennts and emergencies, they are the preserve of the NHS Major Trauma Centres and Major Teaching hospitals. In all around 10% of people in the UK have private health insurance a figure that has not changed much in decades.
It also should be noted that people in the UK are less likely to develop cancer in the first place and less likely to succumb to diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease than the average American, the UK also has a higher life expenctancy and lower infant mortality rate, and we also have pretty good teeth, which are equally as good as American teeth according to a research by UCL and Harvard University.
Keep in mind their system in under intense strain and struggling to stay afloat with just under 67 million residents...or roughly one fifth of the 327 million residents in the U.S.
That's not the whole story.
Britain's unfunded liabilities through 2040, meaning what they'll have to pay for pension and health care benefits is 75% of their GDP.
France also has very high liabilities, and they recently took actions. France slashed pensions from 50% to 37.5%, then raised the retirement age, then increase the number of years need to qualify for pensions by 7 years and 8 years for those born 1973 or later.
Americans only gave to work 35 years, but French now have to work 42 or 43 years (depending on date of birth).
And still, France's liabilities are at 85% of GDP.
France will most likely slash pensions again from 37.5% to 32.5% or 32.0% in order to pay for it.
That's with even higher taxes.
Britain is going to have to increase taxes and cut, reduce or eliminate pension and health care benefits to pay for it.
I feel terribly for the Italians, because they're at 300% of GDP. Italy will have to have massive tax increases and massive cuts to pensions and health care to pay for it.
Germany claims its unfunded liabilities are only 80% of GDP, but a number of independent sources, including the Market Economy Foundation and the EU Central Bank put it at 276% and 228% of GDP respectively.
Massive tax increases coupled with massive cuts in benefits.
EU member-States suffer the same problem as the US: a growing number of retired persons and fewer workers to support them.
I remember pre ACA. My mom couldnt even afford to see a Dr., and had no idea she was sick from cancer. Eventually her cancer metastasized, and killed her. In any developed country she would have lived. In the US now with ACA she would have lived. But we're getting ready to cancel the ACA. And theres no replacement.
Our insurance system is inefficient, expensive, and rarely has better results. We pay twice what other countries do, and we're not getting better results. We're doing it wrong.
Firstly the UK doesn't have medicare for all, it has a national health system which is seperated in to NHS England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales and Health and Social Care for Northern Ireland, this is further seperated in to local area NHS Trusts. The money is applied for through central government via taxes for healthcare and via local government for social care.
The UK also has private health care and insurance, however the trouble with private healthcare is that it becomes more expensive the older you get and the more coverage you require, and the older you become the more likely you are to develop serious illness such as cancer.
That's a problem with health care, not private insurance. The only difference is that with public funds your health care is being paid for by others, most likely those who are younger than you. There is no magic in public funding that causes care to be less expensive as you age; it's just less expensive for you personally.
Notice how no UK politicians are arguing in favor of a US system, though? Mostly because they'd be hurled inverted into the Thames if they tried. The NHS is not without problems, but the Brits know it's still way better than the US model.
I remember pre ACA. My mom couldnt even afford to see a Dr., and had no idea she was sick from cancer. Eventually her cancer metastasized, and killed her. In any developed country she would have lived. In the US now with ACA she would have lived. But we're getting ready to cancel the ACA. And theres no replacement.
Our insurance system is inefficient, expensive, and rarely has better results. We pay twice what other countries do, and we're not getting better results. We're doing it wrong.
62 days is unreal...how are their survival rates? It's got to be pretty poor... If it's not, somebody is lying... You cannot delay 62 days and not have an adverse outcome ..
Notice how no UK politicians are arguing in favor of a US system, though? Mostly because they'd be hurled inverted into the Thames if they tried. The NHS is not without problems, but the Brits know it's still way better than the US model.
Virtually nowhere in the world is anyone emulating the US model. Because in virtually every civilized country in the world they take care of their citizens a hundred times better than the US does. And in many third world countries as well. It's disgraceful how one of the wealthiest countries on the planet cannot manage to provide healthcare for their citizens when everybody else seems quite able to do it.
62 days is unreal...how are their survival rates? It's got to be pretty poor... If it's not, somebody is lying... You cannot delay 62 days and not have an adverse outcome ..
In most cases its not as large of a change in survival rate that you would suspect. But its absolutely not optimal. Sooner is usually (although oddly not always for some studies on some specific cancers) better.
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.
