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.
Do you believe that if the US adopts those types of healthcare that we will suddenly be spending less?
The point I was trying to make (which you obviously didn't get) is that these countries spend a comparable amount to the US, but they cover all their citizens, where the US does not.
By bells and whistles, I mean that hospitals within spitting distance of each other all have state of the art catheterization labs; MRI's, hyperbaric wound centers, etc. Very expensive. And I live in Houston, where these same hospitals are connected to each other by tunnels- you wouldn't even have to transport patients out of doors!
I have been a registered nurse for 27 years and worked in 3 countries. I can tell you that nurses in all 3 countries complained about the same exact things....talk to nurses here and they will tell you about their nurse/patient ratios.
And if you think the NHS is run by accountants, well, welcome to the US where profit is KING in healthcare.
How long have you been in the US now?
What is your salary/hourly rate?
I have spoken to very few US nurses who work with the sort of ratios we have here.
I believe that acute stroke patients are cared for on "step down" or high dependancy units in most hospitals-which is only right.
I think all hospitals that have ERs should have MRI scanners and cath labs,especially as we now know that PCI is superior to thrombolysis for MI.
Our MI patients have to travel 20 miles to another hospital for cath labs, 10 miles for an MRI and 20miles for a neurology and neurosurgery.Great if you are a head injury or subarachnoid haemorrhage.
We have one paramedic ambulance covering the whole of Northumberland (a very rural area for the most part),one air ambulance which works part time and is a registered charity as they can't afford to fund it, and frequently have to use the military sea rescue helicopters. having transferred a critically ill 200 miles in one in the past, it is a horrendous experience.
I do not say the US system is perfect, but it's no good saying the NHS is just because everyone gets covered.That just means that it's much harder to manage and resources are spread more thinly.
Have to remember that we guvt holding the big purse strings, then down to strategic health authorities, then hospital chief execs, then OSMs,then eventually the department managers.
Maybe I also have trouble getting my head around why the guvt is sitting with an NHS underspend of millions.
Sigh-our wonderful NHS
I will never agree that the NHS is anything other than satisfactory now, because personal exp as a patient, nurse and relative tell me differently. I may have said it was good 10 years ago,but not now.No way.
--these countries spend less than the US and still manage to cover all their citizens.
But that is spending per person, NOT in total.
Depends on amount of money in the pot and number of people to cover.
I don'r think you can compare any of those European countries with the US-completely different population with different health care/promotion needs and risks and I would imagine a higher percentage of people who don't pay into any sort of pot for healthcare
How long have you been in the US now?
What is your salary/hourly rate?
I have spoken to very few US nurses who work with the sort of ratios we have here.
I believe that acute stroke patients are cared for on "step down" or high dependancy units in most hospitals-which is only right.
I think all hospitals that have ERs should have MRI scanners and cath labs,especially as we now know that PCI is superior to thrombolysis for MI.
Our MI patients have to travel 20 miles to another hospital for cath labs, 10 miles for an MRI and 20miles for a neurology and neurosurgery.Great if you are a head injury or subarachnoid haemorrhage.
We have one paramedic ambulance covering the whole of Northumberland (a very rural area for the most part),one air ambulance which works part time and is a registered charity as they can't afford to fund it, and frequently have to use the military sea rescue helicopters. having transferred a critically ill 200 miles in one in the past, it is a horrendous experience.
I do not say the US system is perfect, but it's no good saying the NHS is just because everyone gets covered.That just means that it's much harder to manage and resources are spread more thinly.
Have to remember that we guvt holding the big purse strings, then down to strategic health authorities, then hospital chief execs, then OSMs,then eventually the department managers.
Maybe I also have trouble getting my head around why the guvt is sitting with an NHS underspend of millions.
Sigh-our wonderful NHS
I will never agree that the NHS is anything other than satisfactory now, because personal exp as a patient, nurse and relative tell me differently. I may have said it was good 10 years ago,but not now.No way.
I have lived most of my life in the US and have practiced here for 20 out of 26 years. In the last 10 years, I have spent 4 in UK/Ireland and 6 in the US. (Times were split- I was in Europe two different times).
And certainly transporting patients miles and miles is not good. However, you will notice that I said the hospitals were within "Spitting" distance- i.e. you can walk between 4 major hospitals, all within BLOCKS of each other- I don't even think the further distance between any two is even near one mile.
And nurses here have the same issues that nurses in the UK do. Granted by salary may be more, but that doesn't impact quality of care and does not have anything to do with the issues that the US health industry is facing.
I agree, that neither system is perfect. The point here is that the US system badly needs reform. You have no idea how many WORKING people in this country either can't get/or can't afford health care. We are not talking about the poor- disabled or elderly. They are covered by GOVERNMENT healthcare.
Have you ever worked in the US health system? or better yet, have you tried to access healthcare here without insurance or loads of money?
It isn't about spending less. It is about covering more of our citizens. Do you not get that?
And therein lies the problem.
Medication is too expensive, insurance is too expensive, co-pays are too expensive, you get booted out of hospital too early because the insurance won't pay, if you really do have something wrong you have to fight the insurance all the way just to get your basic entitlement, if you have a pre-existing condition they won't cover you at all.
So what happens... we cover all citizens but don't fix the rest. Taxes go sky-high and you still have all the other problems.
Obama's health care policy .... tinker, tax, tinker, tax, tinker, tax
Medication is too expensive, insurance is too expensive, co-pays are too expensive, you get booted out of hospital too early because the insurance won't pay, if you really do have something wrong you have to fight the insurance all the way just to get your basic entitlement, if you have a pre-existing condition they won't cover you at all.
So what happens... we cover all citizens but don't fix the rest. Taxes go sky-high and you still have all the other problems.
Obama's health care policy .... tinker, tax, tinker, tax, tinker, tax
But no one has put forth any viable alternatives. Covering our citizens is the first step.
But that is spending per person, NOT in total.
Depends on amount of money in the pot and number of people to cover.
I don'r think you can compare any of those European countries with the US-completely different population with different health care/promotion needs and risks and I would imagine a higher percentage of people who don't pay into any sort of pot for healthcare
While I agree that it is difficult to compare the US with any single European country, I disagree with your statement "completely different population with different health care/promotion needs and risks". What are you basing this assumption on? Why are the healthcare needs of the US different than those of any country?
When you say that there is a higher percentage of people who don't pay into any sort, are you speaking of the US or Europe? Again, what are you basing this on?b
But no one has put forth any viable alternatives. Covering our citizens is the first step.
I'm not in favor of paying even more tax for a half-assed reform. I want to see some reforms that benefit me as well. Right now, this is just pork in its current form designed to benefit the Democrats natural constituency. I'm in favor of reforming health care but I want somethinmg better thought out and more substantive.
I'm not in favor of paying even more tax for a half-assed reform. I want to see some reforms that benefit me as well. Right now, this is just pork in its current form designed to benefit the Democrats natural constituency. I'm in favor of reforming health care but I want somethinmg better thought out and more substantive.
Who is the Democrats natural constituency? Spell it out for me.
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.
