UK's healthcare top of league table out of 11 western countries. US = last

[Jack]

There's a world of difference between being refused *basic* treatment and anything more advanced. The people currently without an insurance have a 40% higher risk of death than the ones with, according to recent statistics in a Harvard study. I'd say that while they aren't thrown out, they probably aren't offered the same level of care as those with an insurance.

There's a world of difference between expensive treatment, and low standard treatment, and while people using the NHS don't have bills, they probably aren't offered the same level of care as those with insurance or paying straight out of pocket using private hospitals. Not sure why you're being so defensive about nationalized care, Odeon. Nationalized healthcare is hardly your responsibility.

http://www.channel4.com/news/nhs-hospital-death-rates-among-worst-new-study-finds

A google search of NHS mortality leads to all sorts of alarming stories of unpleasant government inquiries, unfavorable board reviews, scandals of cover ups, and what not, all recent. Probably better for people in the UK to focus on problems of the US system instead. Like the title says, UK first, US last. That works.

[El]

There's a world of difference between being refused *basic* treatment and anything more advanced. The people currently without an insurance have a 40% higher risk of death than the ones with, according to recent statistics in a Harvard study. I'd say that while they aren't thrown out, they probably aren't offered the same level of care as those with an insurance.

There's a world of difference between expensive treatment, and low standard treatment, and while people using the NHS don't have bills, they probably aren't offered the same level of care as those with insurance or paying straight out of pocket using private hospitals. Not sure why you're being so defensive about nationalized care, Odeon. Nationalized healthcare is hardly your responsibility.

http://www.channel4.com/news/nhs-hospital-death-rates-among-worst-new-study-finds

A google search of NHS mortality leads to all sorts of alarming stories of unpleasant government inquiries, unfavorable board reviews, scandals of cover ups, and what not, all recent. Probably better for people in the UK to focus on problems of the US system instead. Like the title says, UK first, US last. That works.

I feel like that article glamorizes the US hospital system unrealistically.  Most hospitals aren't anywhere near as good as the Mayo clinic, here or elsewhere.

[Jack]

I feel like that article glamorizes the US hospital system unrealistically.  Most hospitals aren't anywhere near as good as the Mayo clinic, here or elsewhere.

Yes, the article does highlight the Mayo Clinic because it's one of the best; though the study wasn't comparing the NHS to the mayo clinic. If that were the case, the NHS wouldn't care about the findings. Maybe should have taken the time to find a better link. Here's one from the NHS news site which discusses the findings of the study without going into the whole bit about how people are 60% more likely to die in a NHS hospital than one in the US. In fact, it doesn't mention the US at all, but simply the NHS looking at it's own problems. Go figure.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/12December/Pages/Worryingly-high-hospital-death-rates-reported.aspx

[bodie]

I just want to point out that the nhs is not supposed to be a second class service.  It does not agree to deliver just basic healthcare.  It is supposed to be a fully comprehensive and upto date health service provider.

This is from 'The NHS Constitution'

1.
The NHS provides a comprehensive service, available to all irrespective of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status. The service is designed to diagnose, treat andimprove both physical and mental health. It has a duty to each and every individual that it serves and must respect their human rights.
At the same time, it has a wider social duty to promote equality through the services it provides and to pay particular attention to groups or sections of society where improvements in health and life expectancy are not keeping pace with the rest of the population.

2.
Access to NHS services is based on clinical need, not an individual’s ability to pay. NHS services are free of charge, except in limited circumstances sanctioned byParliament.

3.
The NHS aspires to the highest standards of excellence and professionalism – in the provision of high quality care that is safe, effective and focused on patient experience; in the people it employs, and in the support, education, training and development they receive; in the leadership and management of its organisations; and through its commitment to innovation and to the promotion, conduct and use of research to improve the current and future health and care of the population. Respect, dignity, compassion and care should be at the core of how patients and staff are treated not only because that is the right thing to do but because patient safety, experience and outcomes are all improved when staff are valued, empowered and supported.

6.
The NHS is committed to providing best value for taxpayers’ money and the most effective, fair and sustainable use of finite resources.
Public funds for healthcare will be devoted solely to the benefit of the people that the NHS serves.

There are pages and pages of pledges and promises of high standards.  The crazy thing is that a large part of their annual budget is set aside for compensation re negligence.  They know beforehand that they are NOT able to meet the standards they set themselves.

In my Dad's case his consultant was one of the top ones in the UK in that field.  One of my brothers enquired at the time about a private consultation.  We could have seen that SAME consultant at a hospital 30 miles away at a cost of around £500.  So, it seemed logical to see that top consultant for free at an nhs hospital 3 miles away.   

Do you see?  how NEARLY it gave a good service!!  It is very frustrating. 

[odeon]

  I've also observed a fear among some people that universal health care = OMG, COMMUNISM !!!!!! 

Yes, *obviously* universal healthcare means communism.

[odeon]

I get the impression that US citizens don't really want a universal healthcare.  Not enough of you make noise about it.  Well, I don't know if that is true for certain as i only really get a feel of the place via news and TV.  We don't get many reports about healthcare campaigns.  Maybe it is media bias,  but we often see Americans making a noise about their gun rights.

Is this an accurate picture of things?

I just thought about reactions if us Brits woke up one morning to find the nhs gone and replaced with the right to own a gun.   

  Panic

But fun.

[odeon]

Jack, I'm not sure why you get all defensive about what I'm saying - the US healthcare is hardly your responsibility - but here are a few points:

Nobody's going to be driven into bankruptcy here because of a sudden illness and expensive medical bills. It does, however, happen in your country.

I know you're not going to be thrown out from the ER in the US if you don't have insurance, but I'm pretty sure you won't get the whole range of non-emergency treatment if that is the case. The *significantly* higher mortality rates for those 16% - 15.9% at the moment, I believe - prove that.

Yes, the quality of those actually receiving healthcare in the US is quite good. I know. It should be, considering the money the US spends on it. More than anyone else on the planet, per capita, if memory serves. It's significantly more than the money spent per capita in, say, the UK.

Why you are still unable to provide universal healthcare is beyond me.

Not really being defensive, and quite easily able to acknowledge problems in the US system. Have pointed out several times the negative aspects of problems in US health. Though it seems other people have problems doing that with their own systems. The US is bad, the UK is good, gets tiring. It's nonsense. I appreciate bodaccea being willing to say something negative; have never seen anyone here from the UK before willing to say anything negative about the NHS.  The UK aren't doing it any better, just different, and yes, some people in the UK are probably are experiencing financial woes, even bankruptcy, when they can't do their jobs while waiting months for surgery. Not sure why you want to continue making the point of mortality. Thinking the mortality rates of the UK might be related to the health system, because the US has better mortality ratings than the UK and, after all, we're shooting each other over here and dying because we don't have insurance.

I keep bringing up mortality rates because they are significant. They highlight some rather disturbing discrepancies in the healthcare of your country.

Have a look at this article.

Not saying that the quality of healthcare is necessarily better in the UK, btw--the higher NHS hospital death rates do rather indicate the opposite.

[odeon]

Jack, I'm not sure why you get all defensive about what I'm saying

Jack is being logical.

Jack is being defensive.

[odeon]

There's a world of difference between being refused *basic* treatment and anything more advanced. The people currently without an insurance have a 40% higher risk of death than the ones with, according to recent statistics in a Harvard study. I'd say that while they aren't thrown out, they probably aren't offered the same level of care as those with an insurance.

There's a world of difference between expensive treatment, and low standard treatment, and while people using the NHS don't have bills, they probably aren't offered the same level of care as those with insurance or paying straight out of pocket using private hospitals. Not sure why you're being so defensive about nationalized care, Odeon. Nationalized healthcare is hardly your responsibility.

http://www.channel4.com/news/nhs-hospital-death-rates-among-worst-new-study-finds

A google search of NHS mortality leads to all sorts of alarming stories of unpleasant government inquiries, unfavorable board reviews, scandals of cover ups, and what not, all recent. Probably better for people in the UK to focus on problems of the US system instead. Like the title says, UK first, US last. That works.

The NHS is being destroyed by pliticians, as Adam and others have pointed out. Rather than interpreting that as a cue to allowing private health insurances to replace national healthcare, it should be a wake-up call to fix the problems. Your system only works for those who can afford it.

[bodie]

There's a world of difference between being refused *basic* treatment and anything more advanced. The people currently without an insurance have a 40% higher risk of death than the ones with, according to recent statistics in a Harvard study. I'd say that while they aren't thrown out, they probably aren't offered the same level of care as those with an insurance.

There's a world of difference between expensive treatment, and low standard treatment, and while people using the NHS don't have bills, they probably aren't offered the same level of care as those with insurance or paying straight out of pocket using private hospitals. Not sure why you're being so defensive about nationalized care, Odeon. Nationalized healthcare is hardly your responsibility.

http://www.channel4.com/news/nhs-hospital-death-rates-among-worst-new-study-finds

A google search of NHS mortality leads to all sorts of alarming stories of unpleasant government inquiries, unfavorable board reviews, scandals of cover ups, and what not, all recent. Probably better for people in the UK to focus on problems of the US system instead. Like the title says, UK first, US last. That works.

The NHS is being destroyed by pliticians, as Adam and others have pointed out. Rather than interpreting that as a cue to allowing private health insurances to replace national healthcare, it should be a wake-up call to fix the problems. Your system only works for those who can afford it.

Yes it is never in safe hands long enough.  The tories just keep cutting the budget.

[Jack]

The NHS is being destroyed by pliticians, as Adam and others have pointed out. Rather than interpreting that as a cue to allowing private health insurances to replace national healthcare, it should be a wake-up call to fix the problems. Your system only works for those who can afford it.

That study was a ten year study. 60% more likely to die in 2004, currently only 45% more likely to die than hospitals the US. The NHS has never been run or funded properly because it's run by the government. The private sector is the only thing about the UK system that works well, and that's for people who can afford it. nationalized health is a crap system only the wealthy can afford to get away from. That's the point have been trying to make; the government shouldn't be trusted with public health. You're making that point for me, by agreeing the government is destroying it's own system. The private sector does everything better than the government. The US system works for everyone and poor people with public coverage have access to the same health system as people with private coverage. The system just has some financial problems to be addressed, and they are being addressed, without dividing the medical industry by class.

[Jack]

Jack, I'm not sure why you get all defensive about what I'm saying

Jack is being logical.

Jack is being defensive.

Odeon is being defensive.

[Jack]

Yes it is never in safe hands long enough. 

That's probably the best argument against nationalized health in the entirety of this thread, for the US anyway, where the government is constantly changing. Maybe a system of royalty in rule would be in order here first.

[Jack]

I keep bringing up mortality rates because they are significant. They highlight some rather disturbing discrepancies in the healthcare of your country.

Have a look at this article.

Not saying that the quality of healthcare is necessarily better in the UK, btw--the higher NHS hospital death rates do rather indicate the opposite.

The study of mortality in UK hospitals showed a considerable number of the unnessary deaths were attributed to people not receiving proper generalized care, and if the NHS general practice were proper, some of those people wouldn't have been in a hospital at all. The NHS has a lot of problems, and it's not jus the hospitals. Considering the mortality rates of both the US and UK are very similar, and the mortality rates of people without insurance in the US are as equally alarming and important as morality of people without insurance in the UK, can we at least agree both systems are shit and placing the healthcare of the public completely into the hands of government funding isn't necessarily the answer to solving the problems in the US for people who don't have insurance?

Have a look at this article.

Shall we have a link war?

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/07July/Pages/One-in-twenty-hospital-deaths-preventable.aspx

No one needs to tell me the US system has problems that need addressed, am willing to admit that, but think it's very logical the UK does no better and their system isn't a good example of how it's done better, done well, done fairly, or a reasonable place to look when considering what problems should be addressed in the US.

[Jack]

Wow, really thought the hospitals were completely divided between public and private. Didn't realize the NHS is so underfunded it also services private insurance, giving first priority to patients who can pay. Doesn't that piss people off? Hasn't everyone already paid?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospitals-performing-private-operations-2286913