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.
When is the last time that you saw a price list, competitor bids or even an iota of transperancy in the healthcare market? When was the last time you asked to see prices and checked with competing hospitals while in the emergency room? If that was provided would you stop the service and go elsewhere?
I'd have to try and find it again, but there was a comic strip about how shopping around for the best priced healthcare provider and worrying about being "out of network" isn't something that somebody can do if they've been shot in the head.
Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8] - See more at: 10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care | NCPA
Well I guess when you don't count the people who need treatment but can't afford it or it isn't covered by their insurance as waiting then you can say wait lists are shorter, but it isn't exactly honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
Combine all of the EU nations together and it would approximate a peer to the US.
So you only count as a peer if there's roughly the same population? *sigh*
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basking Iguana
Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8] - See more at: 10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care | NCPA
You must see a Cancer Specialist within two weeks of referral in the UK and all patients should have their first definitive treatment from deciding with their Clinician on a treatment plan to actual commencement of treatment within 31 days.
Absolute BS. Try getting any care without insurance. Unless you are closer to death they will just shrug you off and hound you with bills. You have to be basically in an immediate life threatening situation to receive any kind of meaninful help, not necessary competent or helpful, and at that point it is too late in many cases. If you count on hospital generocity, see a shrink asap, you live in a delusionary world.
You must see a Cancer Specialist within two weeks of referral in the UK and all patients should have their first definitive treatment from deciding with their Clinician on a treatment plan to actual commencement of treatment within 31 days.
After reading the article I see that the times are targets, not set in stone actually happening. The question is,"do they meet the targets with frequency?" Or, is it like every other government "target" which in reality is just a wish...
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
After reading the article I see that the times are targets, not set in stone actually happening. The question is,"do they meet the targets with frequency?" Or, is it like every other government "target" which in reality is just a wish...
Potentially Life Threatening diseases are prioritised and the NHS Trusts are reguarly inspected to ensure they meet targets, you can also choose where you are treated including some private facilities.
However the best hospitals to attend are usually the regional cancer treatment centres which include world famous hospitals such as the Royal Marsden in London and the Christie in Manchester.
From my diagnosis to beginning treatment for stage IV lymphoma, it was 2 months. I could actually feel the tumor choking out my ability to breathe as it crushed my lungs in my chest. And even though I was at one of the best cancer centers in the whole world, I could not get the treatment my oncologist recommended.
The UK? Canada? Nope. I was in the United States in a top 5 cancer center. Why? My insurance. I eventually had to reduce the amount of follow up I got after treatment ended because my insurance kept turning down scans as my medical team recommended.
Friends in countries like the UK, Canada, and Israel got into treatment in a period of weeks, not months, and all had no problem getting the recommended chemo. It was given standard - no fights for coverage for the better treatment option.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrat
Margaret Thatcher said it best, "Sooner or later, you run out of other peoples money".
RR
Most countries in the world have succesful Universal Health Care schemes, the problem with healthcare is that more and more expensive drugs and technology is becoming available thereby increasing treatments, costs, life expectancy and indeed expectations, so as medicine and health care advances so do premiums and bills.
In terms of private healthcare this will mean ever increasing insurance bills, whilst in terms of Universal Public Health Care it will no doubt mean higher taxes and expenditure.
I would suggest that the burden is easier for society as a whole to pay rather than many individuasl who may sadly be increasingly forced out of private health coverage altogether in the future.
The NHS is not perfect, however it is better than the alternative, and it should be noted there are many different types of universal health care coverage based on a mixture of non profit making organisations, state provision and indeed some private input. What the NHS needs is more finances, however after the banking crisis we entered in to an era of economic austerity, and many public services have been underfunded as a result. It also should be noted that a relatively small increase in taxes and national insurance would benefit the NHS greatly, and I think this is going to have to be the solution spooner or later, and most polls show that the public in Britain would support this.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-17-2017 at 07:00 AM..
Well I guess when you don't count the people who need treatment but can't afford it or it isn't covered by their insurance as waiting then you can say wait lists are shorter, but it isn't exactly honest.
Of course I don't count them. I think I made it very clear that I only count people who pay for their healthcare. I'm concerned for this demographic, people who don't pay are lucky and should be content with anything they get.
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.
Next...
