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.
People in the US pay more tax money for healthcare than the UK, France, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia and Italy per capita. But the US does not a have NHS system.
The thing that sucks is that medical care is something I DON'T want to pay money for - it's at the very bottom of the barrel of the things I wish to spend money on. And yet 18% of all money spent in this country goes toward healthcare - yikes! I'd much rather live in a place where medical costs are strictly controlled, perhaps limited by law to no more than 5% of GDP, and have it operated as a single-payer system funded by broad-based taxes. I think people need to accept that when their time has come, it's come, and all the medical care in the world isn't going to do much to extend life.
Medical care is one of those things where spending unlimited amounts of money doesn't lead to better results. Just like education, you could spend a million dollars a student, but the kids wouldn't be any smarter than they are now - i.e., the law of dimishing returns. With medical care, we've passed that point a LONG time ago...lol.
I think a lot of the money here is being spent on the wrong things. Doctors pay a ton for malpractice insurance, that cost gets funneled down to the patients. People go to the doctor demanding instant cures and drugs to resolve something that time will cure anyway. And suing everyone for anything is crazy. In other words, our medical priorities are whacked.
On the other hand, I have a friend in England that has some chronic psoriasis or something like that. We have a million drugs here that will control it, but there is only one drug available to him thru NHS and it doesn't work. Rather than "go out of network" and find help for him, their response is "sorry, can't help you" and they're done.
While I've agreed that we need an overhaul of our medical system, the one we have going on right now isn't going to make anything better.
The point is US citizens pay more in taxes that go into health than those who are in countries full National Health Services. Most of these people in the US then have to pay private insurance to get healthcare. It quite scandalous. Have full NHS and be done with it.
On the other hand, I have a friend in England that has some chronic psoriasis or something like that. We have a million drugs here that will control it, but there is only one drug available to him thru NHS and it doesn't work. Rather than "go out of network" and find help for him, their response is "sorry, can't help you" and they're done.
That is not the case. They will source any drugs. If they are fobbing him off he should make sure they get the drugs. All he has to do is get in touch with his local Member of Parliament and it will be seen to.
The point is US citizens pay more in taxes that go into health than those who are in countries full National Health Services. Most of these people in the US then have to pay private insurance to get healthcare. It quite scandalous. Have full NHS and be done with it.
A few issues with your analysis... First, our healthcare is vastly more expensive. Second, the USA would still pay more even if the USA and the UK had the same prices due to having 316 million people. Third, Americans do not like to wait and do not want to be told they cannot get a certain drug. Fourth, the US gov't does not tell Rx companies how much they can charge. Fifth, Americans want to be able to easily sue $$$.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
That is not the case. They will source any drugs. If they are fobbing him off he should make sure they get the drugs. All he has to do is get in touch with his local Member of Parliament and it will be seen to.
Uh huh... The only way to get drugs from the NHS is if they are on the approved list. Some drugs, particularly cancer drugs, are too expensive for the NHS to justify.
I think a lot of the money here is being spent on the wrong things. Doctors pay a ton for malpractice insurance, that cost gets funneled down to the patients. People go to the doctor demanding instant cures and drugs to resolve something that time will cure anyway. And suing everyone for anything is crazy. In other words, our medical priorities are whacked.
While this is a common complaint, the reality is that less than 0.6% of all medical costs come from medical malpractice settlements and less than 2% of all medical costs are derived from medical malpractice in any way (lawyer's fees for both sides, insurance, actual settlements, court costs). Not only that, but the perception that we are too sue happy has made it very hard for plaintiffs to win since juries are prejudiced against them. Only 19% of plaintiffs win at trial compared to about 50% from all civil suits.
Quote:
On the other hand, I have a friend in England that has some chronic psoriasis or something like that. We have a million drugs here that will control it, but there is only one drug available to him thru NHS and it doesn't work. Rather than "go out of network" and find help for him, their response is "sorry, can't help you" and they're done.
I like the NHS a lot, but it is genuinely underfunded given the health issues in the UK. Compared to the U.S., the NHS spends about half as much as we do. If they spent a bit more, they could provide a few more drugs and a few more hospital upgrades. However, even though health spending in the UK has grown at an almost identical pace as the U.S. (very slightly slower over the past 30 years), people in the UK still oppose increases in spending. Like the U.S. they have become generically against more public spending since Thatcher/Reagan, even when said spending is effective and useful.
People in the US pay more tax money for healthcare than all others
Democrats recently had the power to do anything they wanted with our national health care system, and did. If you dislike it, talk to a Democrat.
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.
I'd much rather live in a place where medical costs are strictly controlled, perhaps limited by law to no more than 5% of GDP, and have it operated as a single-payer system funded by broad-based taxes. I think people need to accept that when their time has come, it's come, and all the medical care in the world isn't going to do much to extend life. 
