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

[El-Presidente]

 

Depends on who you ask. The WHO league table looks a little different to what Adam is trying to say. Looks like he is getting skilled in politics, spouting blatant bullshit to support a selective agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_health_consumer_index

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Actually it seems to depend more on whom you quote. Attacking Adam personally does your argument no favours.

Fair enough,  it does depend on whom you quote. You are correct. As for Adam he can cope with an attack from me. I'm not trying to prove a point and I know what ad hominem does to an argument. I'm just sick of seeing him spout propaganda and wished to point this out.

[Jack]

Not sure why that is a bad thing. First of all, everyone is entitled to healthcare here. The quality of that healthcare is actually quite good and while there are problems with queues, yes, people actually do get help. If you don't want to wait or if you prefer a second opinion, there is a private alternative.

Many companies use private caregivers to provide company healthcare, on top of the national system. You can also buy a health insurance.

Plus, the services of some private caregivers are subsidised by the state to complement the national ones.

Why should this not preferable to the situation in the US, where around 16% have no insurance and thus have a significantly higher mortality rate, in spite of the nation spending more money per capita on healthcare? I really don't understand so help me out here.

It's odd that people in the UK don't think it's so terrible to wait in pain for months on end as compared to having bills, and people in the US see it the opposite. It's probably perspective and what people are used to experiencing. Feeling like I'm repeating myself at this point. Everyone is entitled to care here as well; it's annoying when people say we're not. what they're not entitled to, is for someone else to pick up the bill; only certain people are entitled to that. The quality of care here is also quite good, even though a certain subset of the population is sometimes stuck with the bill. However, the US doesn't have a situation where the actual medical institutions are divided by class, which means there's not a situation where people with government/state coverage, or even no coverage, wait for months to be admitted into a hospital, while those with insurance breeze through the door. It's not better because it creates a separation of class within the actual hospitals. Have never denied there's a slice of the populace in the US which is absolutely problematic, but 16% figure is a farce and new statistics from the new legislation will show that. Before this year, there were a lot of people who were offered good coverage by their employers, could afford to pay it, and they chose not to in order to have that money as spendable income instead. Those people were needlessly taxing the health system because when an emergency arrived they didn't have any coverage and their bills went unpaid, and that's exactly the reason new laws require everyone to have insurance. The system in the UK makes it clear that people are in fact better off having health insurance and that's not a very good argument for a nationalized system. It's also odd the UK keeps cutting funding to the NHS, which is only exacerbating the current problems in the system. It's almost like they're doing it on purpose, pressuring the public to pay for their own health coverage while continuing to tax them at a rate that they shouldn't care about paying for health insurance at all.

[El]

Jack, what services are you talking about having what kinds of waitlists in what countries?  The more specific you are, the more credible your argument will seem.  I'm still not totally sure what points you're trying to make, or questions you're trying to ask.

Right now, again, I can tell you from experience, it can be a pain in the ass to get proper healthcare here in the US, too- and not just due to financial reasons.  But, re: finances, I think "bills" doesn't do justice to just how financially damaging medical expenses can really be- they can drive people into bankruptcy.  I know people personally who have delayed or not gotten some pretty important medical care because they didn't have insurance or money to pay out-of-pocket.

[Jack]

Unlike anything said about the US, my comments on UK services are actually academic. Am specifically talking about any non-emergency care requiring a hospital in the UK. UK hospital are divided by class where private hospitals provide immediate specialized care, and public ones have people waiting for months to be admitted. The income lost for a physical laborer waiting five months for a knee surgery is equitable to what the surgery would cost completely out of pocket. It's absurd. Odeon said some private specialist are subsidized by NHS, but read that's actually instances where the NHS has made someone wait beyond the legal limits. Someone who has been made to wait more than 18 weeks for hospitalization can request to be referred to a private hospital at the NHS's expense, don't know their likelihood of getting that. With recurring budget cuts, waiting beyond the legal limit is occurring much more often, so it makes sense that's true and some private specialists are being supported by the NHS. Private insurance in the UK does not cover generalized care, so it's true what he says that people with insurance are using both systems. Don't really care to relay a lifetime of personal experience but do know for a fact everything I say about the care in the US is true. Even small communities have clinics where people can get generalized care for free or nominal fees, and most people can afford generalized care out of pocket. The statistics aren't accurate because up until this year health coverage was a choice for the vast majority of the public. There are uncovered people in the US who qualify for public assisted coverage and don't even realize it. There are uncovered people who qualify for public coverage and don't apply because choose not to be in the welfare system (2014 no longer their choice). There are lower middle class people who don't qualify for public coverage and genuinely can't afford insurance and those people need addressed (repeating myself and don't know if current legislation addresses that). Workplaces who offer coverage pay half of the premium costs and there are middle class people who could afford coverage if their work actually offered it (2014 no longer their choice). There are uncovered self-employed middle class people who can't afford to seek their own insurance because they don't have an employer paying half the premiums and those people need to be addressed (not sure if the new legislation addresses that). There are uncovered middle class people offered ample insurance who don't apply for it because bad choices (2014 no longer a choice). There are middle class people with great insurance who still personally avoid the medical system outside of emergencies, because bad choices. Uninsured people in the US are not denied emergency hospital care. Uncovered people are also not denied scheduled hospital care for either physical or mental health needs, nor are they given care at any less expedience than people who have public coverage or health insurance. There's a huge difference between facing physical pain and financial pain, and bankruptcy over medical bills, doesn't mean people have to forfeit their personal assets. Personally know every single of these things is true, and just because am not poor, uninsured, or both, doesn't mean have never been. Have never said these things aren't problems; they are. Some of the actual financial issues with coverage in the US are being addressed without trying to scrap the system, and truly think that's a positive thing. But it's messed up everywhere, Elle, and the UK isn't a good model of how it's done well or even fairly. Really don't know what to say about people who wont seek medical care because they fear debt, but had to stop reading about the problems in the UK. It's easy to find financial horror stories about care in the US, but after reading about a child needing something as simple as stitches being made to wait so long the wound healed shut, negating the need for it to be stitched, as a reason for a family seeking private insurance. Had to stop reading about the UK. 

[Jack]

have a significantly higher mortality rate,

In looking for legitimate resources for world mortality rates, the US rankes better than the UK, though both are actually very close in annual deaths per 1000 persons, and neither has anything to be proud in their ranking placement on the list. Yes someone did a study about comparing mortality between insured vs uninsured in the us; would be curious to see a study of the mortality rates of NHS vs private health coverage in the UK. On further reading, didn't realize the waiting list is even more problematic than it seems, and people wait to be put on the waiting list for surgery, waiting sometimes more than a year. Reading people very upset for paying taxes all their lives and the first time they need surgery their system isn't servicing them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_mortality_rate
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html

[bodie]

It's apparently quite common with the more expensive treatments, says my research scientist mate at Eli Lilly's.

That might be true in in situations where a less expensive treatment is an available option. Though it's not really the insurance company deciding what care is received, but rather what they will pay for. Though isn't that also true with nationalized care? If there's more than one treatment and the patient opts for the more expensive one, might they expect some out of pocket expense?

Wishing Bodaccea were here; she said something not long ago about saving money so her child could have surgery to correct his vision. That seemed like an odd thing to say.

I'll address this first.  Children (under 16) recieve free treatment for visits to the optician.  The laser surgery for the urchin is not considered appropriate until 16 years old which is when he is liable to pay. Depending on the government at that time they might say to me 'he can wear glasses to correct his vision'.   Which is true.  The future may also be a time where all people who wear glasses can freely choose laser surgery if apprpriate.  This is not a guarantee.

I decided to put some money together so that when he is sixteen i can take him to a laser surgery clinic,  slap some folding on the counter and say "two peepers to be corrected please, pronto! and i will be in the waiting room"

I daresay there will be a way to get it on the nhs when the time comes.  The chance of this will increase if he is still studying and also an argument about the number of glasses he breaks.  There will likely be a lot of waiting.  Huge piles of forms.  It has 'headache' written all over it.

The fact that i am aware that the event is coming (not true for many nhs treatments) gives me the advantage of making plans to ensure it is as pleasant as possible.  The best odds of ensuring this is to have the money ready to pay privately.

I have more to say about this, and the nhs in general but will come back later as i am making a new 'yabbit' run and assault course in the garden. Important stuff.   

[Jack]

Welcome back.

Thanks for responding to that. You make a good point. It does make sense that a lifetime of glasses or contacts would be a good argument for corrective surgery to be covered. Don't really know if corrective surgery is generally covered with US insurance. Vision and dental are separate policies; family has no vision needs so have never had vision coverage.

[bodie]

My experiences of the nhs :  good and bad

* I received excellent care when I had my son.  He was born a little premature and via C section.   I had an excellent midwife “Bev” who really did a great job.  I was assigned to Bev as soon as I was aware of the little urchin and I saw her at least every two weeks until he was a couple of months old.  She provided continuity of care.  I would not have been so happy if I had to chop and change and see lots of different people.

*My GP practice (consists of 4 doctors and 2 nurses) makes a promise to see you that same day if you ring by 12 noon.  They have never failed and have always seen me almost immediately if I have rang about the urchin.   My Mom’s practice is very different and a wait of 2 weeks for non emergency appointments is not unheard of.

*My Dad had laser eye surgery and was amazed with the results.

*My Mum is having carpal tunnel surgery on Tuesday and has not had to wait at all.  However, she did have to wait around three years for a knee replacement.

* I got fed up waiting for ADHD diagnosis for the urchin (2 years) and after lots of complaining I eventually paid a private consultant.   My MP complained on my behalf and this resulted in an investigation where my complaint was upheld.  Since then,  the service from CAMHS (child adolescent mental health services) has been very good.   This gives me the impression that complaining is perhaps futile unless you have someone important in your corner.

*My sister died aged 28 when they failed to diagnose heart valve failure.  She kept getting fobbed off at her GP’s  when she went feeling poorly.  Told her to go home, take some paracetamol.   It was only when she was rushed to A&E that the problem was discovered.  It was too late.

* They killed my Dad.  Well, indirectly.  He had bowel cancer, which was a very non aggressive type that would not likely kill him for 10 years.  He went into hospital for a routine biopsy to check progress and caught C Diff.  Oh he didn’t die immediately – but he never left hospital.  He spent months in there,  deteriorating,  but finally left with a series of strokes.   It would have been an almost guaranteed compensation claim.  My Dad was vehemently opposed to claiming against an already stretched nhs service.   He thought the principal was wrong.  He said the nhs needed money going into it and thought the growing culture of claims to be wrong and greedy.  He wasn’t being naive.  He was a well read man and took an interest in politics.  He was not a religious man, but a man of principal and he used to say you shouldn’t waiver your principals just because you smell cash!

I mention this as negligence claims on the nhs are becoming a problem.

Compensation paid to people whose illnesses were not spotted or were detected too late soared from £56 million in 2009-10 to more than £98 million in 2010-11.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9316982/NHS-compensation-to-misdiagnosed-patients-rises-to-98-million.html
That is just the figure for misdiagnosis.  You have to take into account all the bungling scalpel slip up’s and the shortage of leeches.    The total amount is a whopping:

NHS facing £15.7bn for rising number of clinical negligence claims
The NHS faces a £15.7 billion bill to settle a rising number of clinical negligence claims, a report by MPs disclosed last night.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9065534/NHS-facing-15.7bn-for-rising-number-of-clinical-negligence-claims.html
This is one seventh of the total health services annual budget.
I wonder if £15.7 bn would go a long way to fixing the broken nhs?  It seems a crazy situation.  Mostly, negligence claims are blamed on staff shortages and lack of resources.  So if we spent this money rectifying the shortfall then surely there would not be such a need to claim compensation?

My reason for listing my experiences above is to illustrate just what a ‘lottery’ the nhs service provides.  Facts and figures and graphs and data are useful but i think actual user experiences sometimes make understanding easier.  As you will see services are so varied.  You could receive excellent care in one dept, but a few miles away it could be really awful.  If you require surgery – it might be next week or two years away.  If you make a fuss and a big noise you might get seen quicker.  You might not.
I have no reason to jump up and down and shout about how great the nhs is.  It is clearly very broken, but I have seen it in worse condition.
For me,  I believe in the founding principles of the nhs.  Absolutely.   Therefore I am glad we have one.  Albeit broken.  No matter how mismanaged it gets it will always be worth persuing.  It is worth saving.

[bodie]

I am not really sure about where i sit regarding compensation claims on the nhs.  I thought i was all for it.  When my own complaint was upheld it gave me a green light to persue.  I got the forms but just haven't been able to complete them.  It bothers me that my Dad would be dissappointed in me.  I think that any kind of payout would just feel icky.

I should also point out that if a claim was made about private health care,  it would be directly against that particular consultant or his/ her practice.  The difference with nhs services is that the duty of care does not fall on the doctor but on whichever health trust is responsible.  I wonder if this increases the chance of compensation claims?  It is a faceless institution,  and surely this makes a difference.

[Jack]

That was a good post, bodaccea. My sympathies concerning your father.

[odeon]

Depends on who you ask. The WHO league table looks a little different to what Adam is trying to say. Looks like he is getting skilled in politics, spouting blatant bullshit to support a selective agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_health_consumer_index

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Actually it seems to depend more on whom you quote. Attacking Adam personally does your argument no favours.

Fair enough,  it does depend on whom you quote. You are correct. As for Adam he can cope with an attack from me. I'm not trying to prove a point and I know what ad hominem does to an argument. I'm just sick of seeing him spout propaganda and wished to point this out.

Either he'll cope or he'll cry himself to sleep. You brute.

[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.

[El]

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.

Because here in Murika, we've got it into our heads that we have the right to guns, but don't have the right to universal healthcare.   

(Don't get me wrong, I personally like the idea of being able to get an FID and own a firearm, but I have trouble justifying that as being a "right" in the same weight class as basic human rights.  I think that's based way more on culture and the feels of gun nuts than it is logic, especially with how far outclassed legal civilian weapons are by anything the government would want to throw at us anyway.  Whole nother debate, but, just sayin'.)

["couldbecousin"]

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

[bodie]

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