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.
Interesting. The key difference in opinion between the U.S. and England is probably the overly litigious society that is America.
By no means is the American system a model but in Britain because they have to ration healthcare a friend of mine had to wait a year to have kneee replacement surgery. I have bad knees, if I want the surgery I could get it tomorrow.
Their system is far from perfect as well so be careful what you wish for. There is no ideal solution to this capricious issue.
Conservative stupidity on this issue never ceases to amaze me. We pay more money and literally get less access to health care than any other people on the planet. But the merest hint that we should change into a more sensible system and all the voices come out to scream.
I have actually wondered about this. How are these comparisons made? To be fair, health problems that face Americans are unique in terms of quantity. For example, the obesity epidemic in America is unique in its scale. If, for example, the UK had the same population healthwise as the US, what would the costs be? I understand that one of the tenets of the healthcare system in other countries is that there is allegedly more preventative care, which would curb some of the extreme cases. But I still think a fairer comparison would be to compare the same health population between the two systems. My guess would be that costs would not be as far off as studies currently claim.
Quote:
The truth is that just about ANY system would be better than the one we have now.
Truth is, this is simply untrue. I would never want, for example, to return to a non-insurance society and have all healthcare paid out-of-pocket. I would never want for a government entity to have sole control about what services I can and cannot have.
Quote:
Most Americans have steadily seen their premiums rise much higher than the rate of inflation let alone their salaries. Meanwhile health care companies profits have skyrocketed. So we're basically paying more largely to line the pockets of greedy scum who want to deny us access to lifesaving medical care.
This really is a vicious cycle of government favortism toward medical companies and the passed-on outrageous costs to the medical doctors. Doctor pay is another issue. Take a look at the average pay for doctors in various countries:
Imagine if our doctors made as much as the Belgian doctors!
Quote:
The only conservative answer to the whole crisis is to scream open markets and yell that people should drop dead if they can't afford to pay for health care premiums.
Serious reform is necessary. I personally think that, though, we cannot simply swing the pendulum away from market-based to government-control, as some people want to do. Truth be told, we cannot afford it. The overhaul itself would be tremendous in costs. Gradual changes - I can do that. One thing would be to lower barriers for insurance purchases across state lines. It's ridiculous that, for example, a dental exam in Georgia can cost more than the same exam in Illinois.
By no means is the American system a model but in Britain because they have to ration healthcare a friend of mine had to wait a year to have kneee replacement surgery. I have bad knees, if I want the surgery I could get it tomorrow.
Their system is far from perfect as well so be careful what you wish for. There is no ideal solution to this capricious issue.
I don't think Brits view the NHS as the model for anything. But, for all its faults, it works pretty well for them and offers pretty good care at a very reasonable price compared to what we have. In addition, and what most people over here conveniently ignore, they have a parallel private system which works well for non-urgent care such as knee replacements.
The other thing they seem to have in the UK is an honest national debate about the NHS and how it can be improved. And politicians actually seem to listen to the public on the subject. What we get here is shrill screams of "socialism" and "death panels" but there is never any debate. We are excellent at showing how our population has different health needs but never suggest how it can be fixed. Meanwhile costs continue to rise at double or more of the rate of inflation. Over 8% this year, another 8% next year.
Brits know they don't want the US system and who can blame them. But what do we want and when are we going to get serious about having a mature discussion on the subject? Health care spending is already over 15% of GDP. The CBO estimate it will hit 25% of GDP by 2025. It is economic lunacy not to do something about it.
The U.S. Government already spends more on healthcare than other countries with "socialized" medicine. Add to that, we have a parallel private system that is huge and, well, we just aren't running an efficient health care industry.
Last edited by ChristineVA; 06-14-2011 at 07:47 AM..
The waiting time for an operation in the UK may be up to a year. How long is it for a poor american? I think they would take a year over never any day of the week.
There is also the option of going private for some operations in the uk - something my parents have done in the past. However they still have the safety net of the NHS if they cant afford it.
I guess it comes down to wether you feel healthcare is a basic human right or a luxury.
I believe germany and france have the best healthcare - its a hybrid of insurance and govenrment care.
I am sure america will get it right eventually - like all things it will meet its breaking point.
The U.S. Government already spends more on healthcare than other countries with "socialized" medicine. Add to that, we have a parallel private system that is huge and, well, we just aren't running an efficient health care industry.
Those who claim to be fiscal conservatives care as much about fiscal efficiency as the conservatives caring about conservation of natural resources.
I have actually wondered about this. How are these comparisons made?
Comparisons are made in terms of percentage of GDP per capita spent on health care. Sometimes, but less often, in dollars per citizen. Since health care systems are huge entities doing tens of thosands of jobs, and with a number of external factors affecting results, result comparisons of results are made in terms of very large public health measurements, which are affected by many factors. Differences cancel out with large enough measures. Popular ones are infant mortality, lifespan, healthy life years, and DALYS. Less commonly maternal mortality rates and amendable mortality rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
To be fair, health problems that face Americans are unique in terms of quantity. For example, the obesity epidemic in America is unique in its scale. If, for example, the UK had the same population healthwise as the US, what would the costs be? I understand that one of the tenets of the healthcare system in other countries is that there is allegedly more preventative care, which would curb some of the extreme cases. But I still think a fairer comparison would be to compare the same health population between the two systems. My guess would be that costs would not be as far off as studies currently claim.
Actually, the obesity stats for the UK aren't as far off as you'd think:
You will notice that not only do the rise in obesity not correlate well with the rise in healthcare costs in most countries, but it doesn't correlate with current health care spending either.
In other words, if obesity was a significant driver for costs, we'd expect UK costs to be just behind the US, with Canada as number 3. Which is nothing like what the real world looks like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
I would never want for a government entity to have sole control about what services I can and cannot have.
But a private one is allright? One of the reasons people in other nations do not not want to return to a US style system is that they don't want anyone else at all in charge of what treatments they can have. Excepting medical professionals. The US lack of freedom is not something that would be tolerated in other developed nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
This really is a vicious cycle of government favortism toward medical companies and the passed-on outrageous costs to the medical doctors. Doctor pay is another issue. Take a look at the average pay for doctors in various countries.
It is much more than that. The difference between what America spends on health care, and what it should be saving if the system was more functional is more than twice Americas entire military budget! Down the hole, every year. That is more than just doctors.
Oh, and by the way, at least over there they don't have 50 million and growing of people who can't even access regular health care. And last I checked, we're running out of money anyways thanks to our system, so what does that tell you??
This is inaccurate on at least a couple fronts:
1. The 50 million number misrepresents the true story. It comes from the U.S. Census Bureau report that there were 46.3M uninsured in 2008. But, that isn't the complete story. First, 22% (10.2M) of that number were illegal immigrants. Frankly, you can have different opinions about how to deal with the illegal immigration problem, but it would be really absurd to think that we're going to accept the bill for the health care of anyone that manages to sneak across the border. This is not part of the problem. Next, 38% of the uninsured (17.6M) live in households with incomes over $50k. These households are uninsured by choice. At that income level you can afford a health care policy that provides catastrophic care. So, the true magnitude of the uninsured problem is really more like 18.5M. Still a big number, and something we should do something about, but way lower than the 50M number referenced above.
2. I'd argue the 18.5M uninsured really do have access to our health care system, just not at an optimum level. Anyone who walks into an emergency room is provided care regardless of their ability to pay. Nobody is denied access completely.
1. The 50 million number misrepresents the true story. It comes from the U.S. Census Bureau report that there were 46.3M uninsured in 2008. But, that isn't the complete story. First, 22% (10.2M) of that number were illegal immigrants. Frankly, you can have different opinions about how to deal with the illegal immigration problem, but it would be really absurd to think that we're going to accept the bill for the health care of anyone that manages to sneak across the border. This is not part of the problem. Next, 38% of the uninsured (17.6M) live in households with incomes over $50k. These households are uninsured by choice. At that income level you can afford a health care policy that provides catastrophic care. So, the true magnitude of the uninsured problem is really more like 18.5M. Still a big number, and something we should do something about, but way lower than the 50M number referenced above.
2. I'd argue the 18.5M uninsured really do have access to our health care system, just not at an optimum level. Anyone who walks into an emergency room is provided care regardless of their ability to pay. Nobody is denied access completely.
Let me first ask you, where are your numbers coming from? Next, when you say that there are households insured by choice and that at the income level they can afford catastrophic care, could you back such statements with factual numbers?
By no means is the American system a model but in Britain because they have to ration healthcare a friend of mine had to wait a year to have kneee replacement surgery. I have bad knees, if I want the surgery I could get it tomorrow.
Their system is far from perfect as well so be careful what you wish for. There is no ideal solution to this capricious issue.
And there are many others with bad knees who could NEVER get the surgery. I'd rather see rationed healthcare than no healthcare.
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.
