For those who believe in national health services. (1 Viewer)

[mikhail]

I Know many people have a belief there should be a national healthcare in America well heres a little few things about the NHS in the uk.You can say this is because of the model of are health service but i feel its down to being unable to match the real investment needed on a yearly basis.


* Men in england and wales have a 42% chance 50% below the US level
(wall street journel)
* The world health organisation estimates 25000 britons die unnecessarily of cancer each year.
*Studys show a patient is FOUR times as likely to die during surgery than someone in the US having the same kind of surgery.
(the observer)


also prepare yourself for

* Age discrimination being deined surgery because their "too old" for surgery when many other countries would give treatment.

*Any tourist who happens to fall ill is allowed full treatment if necessery.

* also some new drugs are simply too expensive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4715430.stm

Ok so Germany has a much better health service but dont forget in Germany if you earn 64.3877 USD or more you pay 45% income tax.

 

[PeteEU]

* Men in england and wales have a 42% chance 50% below the US level
(wall street journel)

Eh?

* The world health organisation estimates 25000 britons die unnecessarily of cancer each year.

And do you have the statistics on how many Americans die unnecessarily of cancer each year because thier HMO refuses to treat them or that they dont have any insurance to cover treatment?

*Studys show a patient is FOUR times as likely to die during surgery than someone in the US having the same kind of surgery.
(the observer)

Do you have a link to this study? I dont doubt it, but what is the studies basis and what hospitals do they compare and what surgeries and what demographics. I mean its very easy to show a 4 times higher rate of death in the UK, if the surgery is rarely done at all in the US. Such studies are often politicaly based and considering its coming from the observer.. well.

* Age discrimination being deined surgery because their "too old" for surgery when many other countries would give treatment.

That has been done all through time. Its done in the US, Germany, Denmark and everywhere. Each country has its own ground rules and they are constantly being moved to accomidate the reality of the situation. There is no use in preforming possible life saving surgery to a 90 year old man if the surgery it self is a huge risk and could easily cost him his life. Like it or not, the old you get the harder it is for you to recover from major surgery.

*Any tourist who happens to fall ill is allowed full treatment if necessery.

So you would let them die? Great way to get tourists.. come the UK, but dont get sick because we dont give a rats *** about you. Every single country in the western world and especially in the EU gives tourists the same rights as citizens when it comes to such things. Some dont demand payment (as they often get payment via the tourists home country) but some do.

* also some new drugs are simply too expensive

And those drugs would be used in the US you say? Do you think that a cost cutting HMO who denies simple tests based on a cost benifit analysis will suddenly allow expensive drugs? Dont make me laugh.

Ok so Germany has a much better health service but dont forget in Germany if you earn 64.3877 USD or more you pay 45% income tax.

And? That goes for all of Scandinavia and so on.. The UK has one of the highest coperate taxes in the EU... boo hoo.. Has zero to do with healthcare.

 

[mikhail]

Considering the surgery statistic came from the observer part of the guardian the most left wing newspaper in britain its highly unlikely they would want to prove Americas health care better.

You have to remember the UK has lots of defence spending for its size not to mention nucleur weapons etc thats part of the reason we have less money to spend on health but as the only country in europe really prepared to fight we need it.

THE point is national healthcare would make make healthcare worse for the majority of America.

Besides the fact the ageing populations in europe mean government continueingly have to spend more money on healthcare meaning a constant increase in taxes.

 

[mikhail]

o and i missed of from my first point men in the uk have a 50% less chance of surviving from testicular cancer.Thats on AVERAGE

 

[PeteEU]

There is no doubt that the NHS has its problems but comparing the NHS which covers everyone to a system that does not cover 41 million of its citizens is rather harsh if you ask me.

Plus are your statistics based on say operations on insurance covered people in the US or total for example. What about those in the US that do not have insurance and hence lack easy access to vital surgery and life saving treatment? Its things like this you got to look at before going on and attacking the NHS by comparing it to the US system which is over double as expensive as the UK system.

Take testicular cancer... might it be because men in the UK dont goto the doctor as often as men in the US? The earlier you catch it the bigger the chance of survival.

There is no doubt that there are pit falls in a system like the UKs or Danish or any universal healthcare system. Waiting lists are one and others, but there are at least as many similar problems in a system like the US one.

The question is what would you rather have, a system that is expensive as hell that you paid into if you could afford it or a system that is cheaper, where no serious life threating treatment might have a waiting list (unless you went private of course) but at least you were covered no matter what?

You have to remember the UK has lots of defence spending for its size not to mention nucleur weapons etc thats part of the reason we have less money to spend on health but as the only country in europe really prepared to fight we need it.

And the UK spending more on defence than others is not a reason to "cut" down on healthcare as they basicly do not have anything to do with each other. Goverments will find means to fund healthcare if they have too, as they will find means to fund thier war machine if they have too.

As for your assertion that because the UK has a military force "ready to fight"... its not exactly correct. If we look at military spending per capita then

(2005 numbers)
UK $32763
USA $41666
France $31476
Denmark $33087
Canada $33282
Luxembourg $59664
Norway $40623

If we go in % of GDP then the numbers are a bit different..(also 2005 numbers)

UK 2.3
US 3.8
France 2.5
Denmark 1.4
Canada 1.1
Luxembourg 0.8
Norway 1.7

Numbers from Nato. As you can see several countries with nukes, without nukes, in Iraq, not in Iraq, all have military spending equal or higher per capital or in % of GDP as the UK. And all on the list but the US have national healthcare services funded by taxes in some way and 100% coverage of its citizens and guests.

THE point is national healthcare would make make healthcare worse for the majority of America.

I agree and then again I dont. Depends a lot on how the system would work.. the real question is.. can it get any worse and more expensive than it already is?

Besides the fact the ageing populations in europe mean government continueingly have to spend more money on healthcare meaning a constant increase in taxes.

Again not entierly true. The Danish goverment has constantly lowered taxes on income the last decade and our population is ageing a lot. The same goes for many countries in Europe. Ageing populations does not have to mean higher taxes, but a revision of the whole welfare state as we know it. That is what is happening in many european countries, but the politicians often dont have the balls to do the things needed to fix stuff. But one thing is true, that the relative spending on healthcare for an ageing population will increase because of the number of older people and the longer they live these days. Also the relative healthy younger population can not offset this by going less to the doctor so to say and they will be left with the bill... yes its a big problem, but going private and having millions of uninsured people is not the solution in my opinion... its like going back to the dark ages where only the rich and powerfull had any healthcare and could read and write.. and vote.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I recently posted a link that basicaly says that many of the UK doctors opt for private insurance coverage because of wait times and quality.

I see no reason to pay 45% in taxes.. I don't pay that now with my regular taxes and the cost of my insurance....

 

[Iriemon]

As for your assertion that because the UK has a military force "ready to fight"... its not exactly correct. If we look at military spending per capita then

(2005 numbers)
UK $32763
USA $41666
France $31476
Denmark $33087
Canada $33282
Luxembourg $59664
Norway $40623

Check your source, those numbers cannot possibly be military spending per capita, it is way too high. Those figures are probably GDP per capita.

In the US military spending is ~$500 billion which based on a population of 300 million is about 1,700 per capita.

 

[Iriemon]

US medical spending is more per capita than anywhere else on earth, without a demonstrable improvement in quality of services overall, and we have 45 million people that cannot afford medical care. That tells you that our system is not working very well. We alone of the industrialized nations don't provide basic health care for all our citizens, which tells you something else.

Time to change. Time for new ideas.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

US medical spending is more per capita than anywhere else on earth, without a demonstrable improvement in quality of services overall, and we have 45 million people that cannot afford medical care. That tells you that our system is not working very well. We alone of the industrialized nations don't provide basic health care for all our citizens, which tells you something else.

Time to change. Time for new ideas.

Come up with one that won't cost me more then 33% of my taxable income and we can talk

 

[zymurgy]

This is a question for the liberals primarily.


Where does it end?

As medical care improves we are finding the ability to do more and more costly procedures. Where do we draw the line? does everybody that needs a new heart get one. Is a second heart now a right for all Americans? how about a third one? Does personal responsibility have any bearing on these decisions? Do we subsidize the cost of the 4th heart for the vastly overweight smoker?

Where does it end?

 

[Iriemon]

This is a question for the liberals primarily.


Where does it end?

As medical care improves we are finding the ability to do more and more costly procedures. Where do we draw the line? does everybody that needs a new heart get one. Is a second heart now a right for all Americans? how about a third one? Does personal responsibility have any bearing on these decisions? Do we subsidize the cost of the 4th heart for the vastly overweight smoker?

Where does it end?

Not just a question for liberals, but society as a whole.

The fact is we largely have a nationalized medical system. It is called medicare and medicade. I don't know what the numbers are, but I have read that some large percentage of a person's health care costs are incurred in the last 6 months of life, so my guess is thru medicare and medicaid we already have a lot more of our health care costs paid thru a nationalized program than thru private expenditures.

But whatever the system, you are correct, we cannot afford a system that provides unlimited most costly health care and drugs available to every person. There has to be limits. Tough issues as to where to draw the line, but it must be done.

 

[zymurgy]

Not just a question for liberals, but society as a whole.

The fact is we largely have a nationalized medical system. It is called medicare and medicade. I don't know what the numbers are, but I have read that some large percentage of a person's health care costs are incurred in the last 6 months of life, so my guess is thru medicare and medicaid we already have a lot more of our health care costs paid thru a nationalized program than thru private expenditures.

But whatever the system, you are correct, we cannot afford a system that provides unlimited most costly health care and drugs available to every person. There has to be limits. Tough issues as to where to draw the line, but it must be done.

I see nationalized health care as a pretty good litmus test of ones political idealogy.

And no doubt you are correct, medicare and medicade are social programs sponsored at the federal level. You rarely see conservatives support those programs though.

Conservatives are free to weigh in on where it ends as well. I'm just more curious in seeing how/where liberals draw the line on this issue.

 

[Iriemon]

I see nationalized health care as a pretty good litmus test of ones political idealogy.

And no doubt you are correct, medicare and medicade are social programs sponsored at the federal level. You rarely see conservatives support those programs though.

Conservatives are free to weigh in on where it ends as well. I'm just more curious in seeing how/where liberals draw the line on this issue.

I don't have the expertise in the extremely complicated area to give an answer. But I would probably have something along the lines that basic medical procedures and generic drugs are provided free or very low cost, more expensive/complicated procedures drugs based on a shared co-pay system of some sort.

 

[PeteEU]

Check your source, those numbers cannot possibly be military spending per capita, it is way too high. Those figures are probably GDP per capita.

In the US military spending is ~$500 billion which based on a population of 300 million is about 1,700 per capita.

Yea my mistake.. that was GDP per capita.

The right numbers are

UK $621
USA $1377
France $594
Denmark $431
Canada $290
Luxembourg $374
Norway $671

The point still stands though.

 

[alphamale]

For some horror stories from britain's NHS - check this out:

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2006/03/crippen-diaries-week-11.html

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Well if you look at this data you can see that the UK only spend half of that USA is spending in % of GDP. And even less then it is in USD PPP per capita.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/530538806724

So it's no wonder if the healthcare is not at the same level.

But if you look at the quality data you can see that countries with universal healthcare in many cases are rougly as good or even better even if they spend less money as the USA. Both then it comes to general numbers like life exptenace and infant mortility rate. And also then it comse to resources:

http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,2340,en_2825_495642_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

 

[taxedout]

That has been done all through time. Its done in the US, Germany, Denmark and everywhere. Each country has its own ground rules and they are constantly being moved to accomidate the reality of the situation. There is no use in preforming possible life saving surgery to a 90 year old man if the surgery it self is a huge risk and could easily cost him his life. Like it or not, the old you get the harder it is for you to recover from major surgery.

Are you advocating rationing then ?

 

[PeteEU]

Are you advocating rationing then ?

No.

All I am stating is that it happens all the time in all countries including the USA and its dispite being public or private funded.

Often its a medical call.. I mean giving a 90 year old a heart transplant is a bit.. stupid as his life expentency is not that long and that is if he survives such a very dangerous operation. Heck even a hip operation on someone over 80 is considered high risk depending on the health of a person.

But sometimes its a financial call and often when its very expensive experimental drugs or procedures. I have heard of plenty of countries that have denied the payment and hence usage of treatment based on thier doubts that it would work, and that is even though say the country next door does use the treatment. But in those cases its often possible for the person get private care and treatment if he or she can afford it.

 

[taxedout]

No.

All I am stating is that it happens all the time in all countries including the USA and its dispite being public or private funded.

Often its a medical call.. I mean giving a 90 year old a heart transplant is a bit.. stupid as his life expentency is not that long and that is if he survives such a very dangerous operation. Heck even a hip operation on someone over 80 is considered high risk depending on the health of a person.

.

Transplants are rationed because there are only so many organs to go round
There is no other rationing in the US.

Do you realize the mortality of not replacing the hip ?
Are you ging to tell your grandma, who functions very well around the house, and has a very good quality of life despite stable angina, COPD and diabetes, that she has to die because she is too old ?

Who will make that call for you if you are resistant ?

 

[BWG]

I don't know if you call it rationing or not, but just because you need some type of transplant, you don't just 'get on a list' and move up as people ahead of you get a transplant or die. You are evaluated. This includes, your overall health, age, cessation of original cause (if any) such as alcohol, smoking, obesity, etc. You are then assigned a 'risk' factor and that will determine your place on the list. Then a lot of times just pure luck is involved, like finding a matching donor and where you live could also be a determining factor. And yes, sometimes financial considerations come into play.

 

[alphamale]

Well if you look at this data you can see that the UK only spend half of that USA is spending in % of GDP. And even less then it is in USD PPP per capita.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/530538806724

So it's no wonder if the healthcare is not at the same level.

But if you look at the quality data you can see that countries with universal healthcare in many cases are rougly as good or even better even if they spend less money as the USA. Both then it comes to general numbers like life exptenace and infant mortility rate. And also then it comse to resources:

http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,2340,en_2825_495642_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

These kinds of statistics have long been jiggled to have a deliberately misleading result - for example in some countries there is a false infant mortality rate because fetuses with any significant are routinely aborted, without any legal or moral impediments. This kind of manipulation is used to absurdly imply that the health care is "better" than the U.S. Also, some whitey countries like sweden don't have the "underclasses" with all kinds of social pathologies that lead to problems or deaths of infants that are hardly the fault of the health system.

 

[taxedout]

I don't know if you call it rationing or not, but just because you need some type of transplant, you don't just 'get on a list' and move up as people ahead of you get a transplant or die. You are evaluated. This includes, your overall health, age, cessation of original cause (if any) such as alcohol, smoking, obesity, etc. You are then assigned a 'risk' factor and that will determine your place on the list. Then a lot of times just pure luck is involved, like finding a matching donor and where you live could also be a determining factor. And yes, sometimes financial considerations come into play.

Exactly. There has to be a selection process, because there are not enough organs for everyone. You can be self pay(translation:no pay), medicaid/medicare or private insurance. Your organ failure can be a result of personal lifestyle choices. It doesn't matter. The selection criteria is based on cardiavascular health, likelyhood of success, social variables such as cessation of alcohol, cigarettes and other social issues.

The process is self rationed by the numbers of available organs. that's just life. This is much different than the rationing PeteEU is talking of.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

These kinds of statistics have long been jiggled to have a deliberately misleading result - for example in some countries there is a false infant mortality rate because fetuses with any significant are routinely aborted, without any legal or moral impediments. This kind of manipulation is used to absurdly imply that the health care is "better" than the U.S. Also, some whitey countries like sweden don't have the "underclasses" with all kinds of social pathologies that lead to problems or deaths of infants that are hardly the fault of the health system.

Ok I just though that the richest country and according some best country in the world would be able take care of the citizen as good as European countries. But what about the other data? Like for example doctors, emergency bed and life expectance? Not that European and other countries are much better. But they seem to keep roughly the same standard as USA while having lower costs. It would also be intersting to see the indipendent data for wich countries that have those abortions.

 

[Enola/Alone]

Having lived in the UK my whole life, I've got no experience of private health care, but why is it that so many Americans see it as some kind of comie, pinko weirdo suggestion? Isn't it better to have healthy employees working their healthy butts of instead of huddled over their desks barely working because they won't get their (probably relatively easy to treat) medical conditions treated because they're worried it might cause them money, or send their premiums up? What about poor women who have child after child because theier insurance provider doesn't cover birth control/abortion? Wouldn't it benefit your school system to have all your pupils healthy? I'm a student myself, and when I'm ill, I just go straight to my GP, get my prescription(which is free, due to my age and my heart condition), take it, and I'm back a school within days, completely healthy and ready to work. I know nationalised health costs a little more, but it's fairer all around. The British system's not without it's problems (we have to pay for dental work, glasses and prescribed medication unless we have exemption certificates due to our age/ill health) but it's fair and I think it gives us a healthy productive nation, which can only be a good thing. And to the starter of this thread who pointed out that foreign traveller's get full treatment? What, were we meant to leave them to die in the corner? You get equal treatment on the NHS, regardless of you nationality or financial wealth.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Having lived in the UK my whole life, I've got no experience of private health care, but why is it that so many Americans see it as some kind of comie, pinko weirdo suggestion?

I don't think it's a pinko commie anything. I think it's going to end up costing me more money then I pay now for private health care. I think it's going to limit my choices, I think it's going to stunt new medicine and treatment R&D. I think its going to be a disaster if the government runs it. There are a number of reasons that I am not for NHC... Pinbko commie is not one of them.

Isn't it better to have healthy employees working their healthy butts of instead of huddled over their desks barely working because they won't get their (probably relatively easy to treat) medical conditions treated because they're worried it might cause them money, or send their premiums up?

This a non issue for a country that works more hours then any others. And is also the largest importer and exporter of goods and services in the world. NOt exactly sure what you mean by that statement.....

What about poor women who have child after child because theier insurance provider doesn't cover birth control/abortion?

Stop having kids if you can't take care of them. Not sure why I should be responsible for your inablitiy to control yourself or to purchase a condom. If this is a problem I would be for government sponsored sterilization in these instances

Wouldn't it benefit your school system to have all your pupils healthy?

NOt exactly what makes you think there not healthy. Are you just reaching into some bag of guesses and suppositions

I'm a student myself, and when I'm ill, I just go straight to my GP, get my prescription(which is free, due to my age and my heart condition), take it, and I'm back a school within days, completely healthy and ready to work. I know nationalised health costs a little more, but it's fairer all around. The British system's not without it's problems (we have to pay for dental work, glasses and prescribed medication unless we have exemption certificates due to our age/ill health) but it's fair and I think it gives us a healthy productive nation, which can only be a good thing. And to the starter of this thread who pointed out that foreign traveller's get full treatment? What, were we meant to leave them to die in the corner? You get equal treatment on the NHS, regardless of you nationality or financial wealth.

Yet your doctors opt for private healthcare.......

Not exactly sure why I would want something thats going to cost me more money yet not be any better then I presently have?? I grew up being told to work for what you want, that things are not just given to me because I have the inate ability to breath....