I want the honest truth on this.

[Skarvig]

1. Does Canada's hwalthcare really suck that bad? Are there canadians coming here for medical purposes?
- Can't say something about that, because I'm from Germany.

2. What problems are there with French/U.K. Healthcare? Because our media (except Faux) says mostly good things on it.
- I don't really know. I never saw any real problems. Of course it is more expensive, than the way America handles it, but it's also very effective and fair for everyone.

3. What is an outsider's perspective on American healthcare?
- I really like public health care, so my oppinion isn't the best. I can't understand how a government, that wants only good for its people, denies public healthcare.

4. Would I have died?
- That's not a question in which country you live. From where I see it if you would have lived in a different state in America you coulnd't get the treatment that you had got. As you said it was an experimental procedure. I don't know in which way you got treatment. If you could give a little bit more information. Pretend you were born in a different hospital and they don't have the medicine. So you might as well be mentally handicapped.
But if you were born in Europe and you didn't were born dead already, you would live today but probably mentally handicapped. We don't let people die here because of a percantage.

BTW. In Germany there is also a two class health care. Of course you have health care but you can get a private health insurance. This way you get treated first and don't have to pay for medicine.

 

[rossatdi]

1. Don't know, I'm English.[
2. Cost - The NHS costs every man woman and child approx 3 times more in taxes than they would have to pay for private insurance.
Waiting times - These have gone down over the past few years (after a doubling of the NHS' budget) but are still far too long in many cases
Doctors/Nurses - Under trained, underpaid and there aren't enough of them
Quality of care - Survival rates in the UK are much lower than you'd expect from an advanced western country.
Other problems include hygiene, denial of treatment and bureaucracy.
3. Flawed but better than ours. People seem to forget about the MediCare system whereby those who actually can't afford insurance get free healthcare. Keep in mind that no US politician is suggesting an NHS style healthcare system. Even former soviet states have got rid of their state-run healthcare monopoly.
4. Impossible to say, but I guarantee your odds were increased by living in the US.

Er, sorry what? This is actually incorrect in a number of important ways.

UK: 8.2% of GDP on health care, or US$3,065 per capita.
US: 15.2% of GDP on health care, or US$6,347 per capita.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
The UK's life expectancy is a year more than the US. Not saying this is because of the NHS but its certainly not killing us quickly.

 

[LockHeart]

.

I would like these questions answered:
1. Does Canada's hwalthcare really suck that bad? Are there canadians coming here for medical purposes?
2. What problems are there with French/U.K. Healthcare? Because our media (except Faux) says mostly good things on it.
3. What is an outsider's perspective on American healthcare?
4. Would I have died?

I made this not to prod at anyone/thing, only to get a deeper understanding of the opinions and facts of the world around me.

Cheers, it's 3:30 a.m. here and the Palm Pre's keyboard is TINY!

1. Sorry mate, another Englisher here

2. I think this blog post I found gives a few insights into problems with the NHS: http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/08/criticising-nhs-is-not-treason.html

3. I like the fact that Americans can choose who provides their healthcare, and that they have the guts to actually tell the government to get fucked when they want to introduce more taxes. I don't have a problem with the government providing low-cost health-insurance, perhaps operating in the same way that Sweden's school voucher system works, but I don't like the idea of a compulsory tax to pay for it.

4. I couldn't really answer that. It's possible, but then again NHS doctors just completed a pioneering treatment by transplanting 5 donor organs into 5 different people in the space of a few hours with a 100% success rate, so you could very well have lived.

 

[Fulax]

Er, sorry what? This is actually incorrect in a number of important ways.

UK: 8.2% of GDP on health care, or US$3,065 per capita.
US: 15.2% of GDP on health care, or US$6,347 per capita.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
The UK's life expectancy is a year more than the US. Not saying this is because of the NHS but its certainly not killing us quickly.

I didn't say US healthcare was cheap, I said the NHS is expensive. Which it is.

There are a number of reason why the US has a lower life expectancy than the UK, people shooting each other on inner city streets for example. Also, in the UK, and most of the world, if a baby dies shortly after birth it is listed as stillborn. In the US as long as it has a pulse it recorded as alive. If it then dies, that then affects mortality/life expectancy statistics.

 

[rossatdi]

I was born on March 24th, 1990 24 weeks early at 1lb. 4oz.. I had a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of survival and numerous complications (and scars to prove it); even if I lived I would've been mentally handicapped by all accounts. I was part of an expirementtal procedure along with 100 other babies and lived. My I.Q. Is 136 and I am somewhat healthy (more complications than normal).

I was treated and cared for at Northwick Park Hospital (a general, grubby NHS hospital near where we all lived) and for some parts Great Ormond Street (a specialist NHS childcare hospital in London). My parents paid nothing for this treatment (after all, who would insure a child that was having expensive problems right from the offset?).

Correction your parents did pay something for you to be saved just not upfront. If the NHS was privatised the corresponding dip in taxes that need to be collected would be equilant to scrapping Income Tax. Therefore your parents paid 20% of their income (more if they are richer) to safe your life.

No doubt this is an acceptable sacrifrice. Here's the thing though. They are stillp aying that 20%. Even though they might no longer use the NHS in a year. You are confusing free on point of use with the NHS being "free".

I am literally apoplectic with rage at this bull shit.

20% of Governmental expenditure in the UK is on healthcare. At that point in time my parents were on the 20% income tax bracket. So 1% of their income went on it. You are claiming that a 1% dip in taxes is worth that?

In the US my family would have been paying a similar amount on income tax (when you put state & federal together) and most likely would have been paying health insurance separately.

The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost.

So we'd have been an extra 4k out of pocket for the same cost.

 

[WolfThomas]

SUMMARY:
I would like these questions answered:
1. Does Canada's hwalthcare really suck that bad? Are there canadians coming here for medical purposes?

No it doesn't suck and those who are crossing the boarder are the very rich, who can get preferential treatment by spending a lot of money.

2. What problems are there with French/U.K. Healthcare? Because our media (except Faux) says mostly good things on it.

There are longer waiting lists if you aren't privately insured, but in the American system these people couldn't afford to even stand in the line.

3. What is an outsider's perspective on American healthcare?

Pretty ridiculously stupid, in Australia we never have to withhold treatment because someone can't afford it.

I'm sorry but medicine in the USA is often seen as a joke compared to the rest of the developed world, not just in terms of healthcare but outdated methods and terminology.

4. Would I have died?!

Who knows, but your risks would have probably been as good in Australia, the UK or Canada.

 

[rossatdi]

UK: 8.2% of GDP on health care, or US$3,065 per capita.
US: 15.2% of GDP on health care, or US$6,347 per capita.

I didn't say US healthcare was cheap, I said the NHS is expensive. Which it is.

Explain. Double the per capita cost. Double. If it is paid through taxes through the government, that's fine with me.

My girlfriend is an American, who now lives in this country, and she recently went to the local GP. She actually couldn't believe all she had to do was walk in, prove address and it was available.

'Oh but the taxes pay for it!' Yes they do, that's what taxes are there for. The fact that the tax rate in the UK isn't massively above that of the US (around 40% as opposed to around 30%) is important in context of our better public education, better welfare, better public transport and universal healthcare.

So basically we pay more to the government and get more.

 

[Agema]

The biggest problem in the UK NHS is generally length of time to receive treatment and old infrastructure.

The NHS was underfunded in the 1980s and early 1990s. This meant the hospitals lacked resources to see that patients were dealt with quickly, and also that some of the hospitals began to become unsuitable and the equipment - whilst still doing the necessary job - a little old. In the last 10-15 years the government has put a lot of effort into reducing waiting times, building new hospitals, and buying new equipment. Although they've made a lot of progress in all areas, the problems have not yet been totally eliminated.

I might also stress that when I say waiting times can be slow, emergencies and acute problems are dealt with immediately, and severe illnesses like cancer and heart disease are prioritised. The problem is mainly for non-critical ailments, like some types of chronic pain, ingrowing toenails, and so on, that need an operation. In terms of GP access as opposed to hospital work, I don't think there's ever been a major, institutional problem.

However, bear in mind that Britain still has a private healthcare sector. If you are not satisfied with the NHS, you can pay for private treatment - there are benefits, generally that you don't have waiting times as explained above, but obviously it's expensive. Most people who could afford medical insurance or private treatment don't bother, as they consider the NHS to be good enough.

Personally, I think the NHS is both generally good at healthcare, and good value. Obviously, it's not perfect - mistakes happen, and like any organisation, corporation or government body, there can be systemic problems that need to be addressed. But I like it and I'd like the UK to keep it.

 

[bjj hero]

If your procedure was experimental and they were looking at implimenting it you would have got it... and you family would not have had to shell out $80,000. You could have still gone abroad and paid for it too.

Im from the UK.
Im sure Canadians do cross the border, those who have money and want to jump the queue.

The bad is that we have less bells and whistles, eg the food is "functional". IF you want better you have the option of private health care such as BUPA. Unlike US private healthcare BUPA is fntastic as it's a luxury item. They have to provide a desirable service to stay in business. The health insurance companies have you by the balls in the states, you have no other options. The other down side is that because its a shared service people are prioritised by need. If you are dying your procedure will be first in. A cosmetic or nonelife threatening illness and you'll have a little wait. You can still pay to jump the queue though by joining BUPA.

America... I trained as a paramedic in America so I have a better idea than most Brits. Healthcare is great in America as long as you are wealthy and healthy. Pre existing conditions leave you uninsurable, insurance is expensive. On the plus side if you can afford it you can get almost any procedure in days. Your trips to the Dr etc are extortionate, even when insured. One of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in America is medical bills, the vast majority of those people had insurance. The system is broken. Its a disgrace to have people with treatable conditions to have to go untreated due to money in the richest nation in the world.

When I was on the Ambulance in Houston the average ride with no treatment was $400, that was in 1999, Im sure its gone up since then. If you are injured enough to need an ambulance you will probably need time off work. $400 plus hospital fees plus meds won't help you to get back on your feet.

I get what your dad says about paying for the needy, no one likes hangers on. The NHS is still cheaper per head than your private insurance, even when Im paying for the jobless. Having said that when I returned from America I was unemployed for about 9 months so the tax payer helped me to get back on my feet. I still grumble about the long term unemployed I'm paying for though, its my right as atax payer... The NHS isn't perfect, I have recommendations for improvement but I much prefer healthcare here than in the US, and I can afford insurance in both.

I laugh at this talk of death panels; what do you think your insurance companies are doing when they pour over your policy for a reason not to pay, shout "pre-existing condition" or only pay for half your treatment because you crossed statelines/whatever?

Glad everything worked out and that you are around to post on the escapist.

 

[rossatdi]

The biggest problem in the UK NHS is generally length of time to receive treatment and old infrastructure.

The NHS was underfunded in the 1980s and early 1990s. This meant the hospitals lacked resources to see that patients were dealt with quickly, and also that some of the hospitals began to become unsuitable and the equipment - whilst still doing the necessary job - a little old. In the last 10-15 years the government has put a lot of effort into reducing waiting times, building new hospitals, and buying new equipment. Although they've made a lot of progress in all areas, the problems have not yet been totally eliminated.

I might also stress that when I say waiting times can be slow, emergencies and acute problems are dealt with immediately, and severe illnesses like cancer and heart disease are prioritised. The problem is mainly for non-critical ailments, like some types of chronic pain, ingrowing toenails, and so on, that need an operation. In terms of GP access as opposed to hospital work, I don't think there's ever been a major, institutional problem.

However, bear in mind that Britain still has a private healthcare sector. If you are not satisfied with the NHS, you can pay for private treatment - there are benefits, generally that you don't have waiting times as explained above, but obviously it's expensive. Most people who could afford medical insurance or private treatment don't bother, as they consider the NHS to be good enough.

Good points all round. I actually had an NHS operation to remove a nasal polyp because the guy in front of me in the surgery queue had massive complications on his stomach surgery. Seeing as my op was quality of life, I got re-scheduled a month down the line.

Its a simple point over economic ordering principles. Infinite wants vs. finite resources. This is either solved by price or queuing. Since people in the queue can be prioritised so they don't die, queuing is a good system for healthcare.

The NHS needs (and has got) a lot of help in the last ten years. Its still could do with more but its a natural limitation of the scheme and Britain is historically shit at doing it anyway. Northwick Park which is decaying shit pile has fantastic equipment and facilities, just an ancient building.

Health insurance in the UK is a fraction of the cost in the US. Because the alternative product is so good, health insurance providers can't charge that much. It is a great way of keeping the costs down.

 

[Fulax]

UK: 8.2% of GDP on health care, or US$3,065 per capita.
US: 15.2% of GDP on health care, or US$6,347 per capita.

I didn't say US healthcare was cheap, I said the NHS is expensive. Which it is.

Explain. Double the per capita cost. Double. If it is paid through taxes through the government, that's fine with me.

My girlfriend is an American, who now lives in this country, and she recently went to the local GP. She actually couldn't believe all she had to do was walk in, prove address and it was available.

'Oh but the taxes pay for it!' Yes they do, that's what taxes are there for. The fact that the tax rate in the UK isn't massively above that of the US (around 40% as opposed to around 30%) is important in context of our better public education, better welfare, better public transport and universal healthcare.

So basically we pay more to the government and get more.

The NHS costs us £2000 per capita. My private health insurance in the Netherlands (comprehensive cover) costs approx £850 per year. Get a quote from AXA or BUPA and you'll find similar prices. I'd say that makes the NHS expensive.

And since when have our education/welfare/transport systems been considered good?

 

[c0rtha]

Summary at the bottom, reading is for background of the questions

2 weeks ago, my uncle flew in from Washington with his family to come visit us; he is a pastor at a church and is VERY consrevative (although, he is a caring, loving person that would do anything for me despite the tone of the following). At the dinner table, politics came up between us and we got to healthcare. He said that if we were to adopt univ. Healthcare that not only would we as a country go bankrupt, but that millions would receive much worse healthcare quality than before. He cited the fact that there were hundreds (or thousands, I forgot which) of Canadians crossing the border near his house to get "basic healthcare requirements" not given under the Canadian system and that it was an utter failure.

Now, I am the only liberal at thr table (of 7) and started to debate him on how we are 38th in terms of quality and how 47 million people don't even have healthcare. The topic started to get heated until the food arrived, at which point it was promptly dropped.

3 days ago we (my family, he flew back) went out to eat and were remenissing on this when healthcare came up again. I used the before argument and others (we pay the most (although some of it is a higher level of technological avaliability per hospital), the unnecessary drugs, some (not all) doctor salaries at 400k, the insurance cos. profits are excessive, others as well too numerous to post here).
My Dad said that he worked for his money and that the people who were unemployed would leech the system, that he earned his money and shouldn't have to spend it on another person because they should help themselves, long waiting periods for minor surgeries (see my "cure" thread for more), that we would be bankrupt, and one other thing...
I was born on March 24th, 1990 24 weeks early at 1lb. 4oz.. I had a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of survival and numerous complications (and scars to prove it); even if I lived I would've been mentally handicapped by all accounts. I was part of an expirementtal procedure along with 100 other babies and lived. My I.Q. Is 136 and I am somewhat healthy (more complications than normal).

My Dad said that if I were born in the U.K. or Canada, etc. that I would have died from being denied treatment because of the "statistical survivability rate" being too low and the govt. not waisting money (even though mortality is less there). He paid around 80k for me out of pocket to get the treatment.

Let me make 2 things clear:
1. I love my Dad with no end and his comment didn't phase me at all. I can understand his logic and feelings/emotions on this.
2. Although I do want univ. care, I would give it up as long as everyone is insured one way or another. I tend to read all sides of an argument before I formulate an opinion.

SUMMARY:
I would like these questions answered:
1. Does Canada's hwalthcare really suck that bad? Are there canadians coming here for medical purposes?
2. What problems are there with French/U.K. Healthcare? Because our media (except Faux) says mostly good things on it.
3. What is an outsider's perspective on American healthcare?
4. Would I have died?

I made this not to prod at anyone/thing, only to get a deeper understanding of the opinions and facts of the world around me.

Cheers, it's 3:30 a.m. here and the Palm Pre's keyboard is TINY!

here in australia, we have a public health system, i think we pay an extra 1000 dollars a year on taxes, but that covers EVERYTHING any and every single time we visit a doctor medicare repays us, it works perfectly, its run for many many years, and australia isnt bankrupt

1. i personally have never tried canada's healthcare system, but i dont believe its as bad as the right-wingers say it is
2. English people have horrid teeth?
3. if i lived in america id be afraid to leave my house
4. whether or not you died would have depened on were else that same treatment was available, luckily it was available to you

 

[Mekado]

I'm Canadian and i have no problems with our healthcare system.

It's true some non-urgent care may takes a little longer to do but the urgent treatments gets done *urgently*.The ones complaining are the ones deemed non-urgent, but obviously they consider themselves a life-and-death case and they should be treated in priority...

The ones crossing the border are usually wealthy people not wanting to wait in line.

Fun fact, a valid healthcare card (assurance-maladie for QC) sells for 10k$ on the black market, hey it's free healtcare! and contrary to what some people say, our hospitals are up to par with anything in the west.

 

[Gooble]

This is one thing that Americans don't seem to get about the NHS, mainly thanks to the Republicans completely skewing the facts. On the NHS, they don't just leave you to die. True, some treatments are available only in certain hospitals, and if required you can be transferred to a different hospital so you have access to those treatments, but at the very least the hospital will do all they can to get you better.

 

[rossatdi]

UK: 8.2% of GDP on health care, or US$3,065 per capita.
US: 15.2% of GDP on health care, or US$6,347 per capita.

I didn't say US healthcare was cheap, I said the NHS is expensive. Which it is.

Explain. Double the per capita cost. Double. If it is paid through taxes through the government, that's fine with me.

My girlfriend is an American, who now lives in this country, and she recently went to the local GP. She actually couldn't believe all she had to do was walk in, prove address and it was available.

'Oh but the taxes pay for it!' Yes they do, that's what taxes are there for. The fact that the tax rate in the UK isn't massively above that of the US (around 40% as opposed to around 30%) is important in context of our better public education, better welfare, better public transport and universal healthcare.

So basically we pay more to the government and get more.

The NHS costs us £2000 per capita. My private health insurance in the Netherlands (comprehensive cover) costs approx £850 per year. Get a quote from AXA or BUPA and you'll find similar prices. I'd say that makes the NHS expensive.

And since when have our education/welfare/transport systems been considered good?

I ride the train to work and took the bus to a pub last night. I had state education and got into a university ranked in the top 50 in the world. I'd say its alright.

In 2005, the Netherlands spent 9.2% of GDP on health care, or US$3,560 per capita. Of that, approximately 65% was government expenditure.

So the Netherlands is paying slight more % wise per capita, and then you paid an additional price for private. Sounds very similar to the UK to me.

Simple fact, US vs UK systems (as this is the debate from the OP):

The US pays double the per capita cost to leave 45 million people without cover.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Nope you wouldn't have died in the UK, they have a wonderful magical place called Great Ormond Street Hospital that kicks the ass of childhood diseases and complications.

Also doctors in Europe take the hypocratic oath, they do everything in their power to help another life.

 

[Spudgun Man]

Well the way I see it is that the majority of the American goverment does not want to have a universal health care system cause they won't make money out of it.

(and therefore will probably sight that as a reason for Barack Obama for being a communist)

 

[cainstwin]

well, im probably repeating alot of things tht have alreay been said but here goes...
1. I seriously doubt canada is not providing basic health care, but im british, my guess is as many have sed they simply want the care faster.
2. problems... well our media is always spouting scare stories, but our media will say nything 2 sell papers. Personally Im proud of the NHS.
3. To us, the idea that any1 can be happy to let 47 million (almost the population of england) go without basic medical treatment seems rediculous. And even private insurers are only in it for the money, the emphasis seems to be on money, not on medical needs, which I don't feel is how a healthcare system should work.
4. Well, we would have done everything possible to keep you alive. We definately wouldn't have been checking our actuarial charts first to see whether its worth the effort.

 

[rossatdi]

well, im probably repeating alot of things tht have alreay been said but here goes...
1. I seriously doubt canada is not providing basic health care, but im british, my guess is as many have sed they simply want the care faster.
2. problems... well our media is always spouting scare stories, but our media will say nything 2 sell papers. Personally Im proud of the NHS.
3. To us, the idea that any1 can be happy to let 47 million (almost the population of england) go without basic medical treatment seems rediculous. And even private insurers are only in it for the money, the emphasis seems to be on money, not on medical needs, which I don't feel is how a healthcare system should work.
4. Well, we would have done everything possible to keep you alive. We definately wouldn't have been checking our actuarial charts first to see whether its worth the effort.

Quoted for truth, despite spelling mistakes!

That's the main thing, British complain about everything and it can be taken out of context. To suggest that anyone (or at least significant numbers) in the country would actually do away with it is ridiculous. I think 47 million is the population of England (without Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).

 

[Pillypill]

The health care in England,Whales ect. Is good, for the most part. Things like how clean the hospital is and if the staff actualy give a shit about the patients, can, and will, vairy from city to city. West london has an excelent NHS, acording a woman i know who works as a private cyro-practor, she says that she doesn't bother with private health care herself, because of how good her local NHS is. It's seen her through breast cancer a near miscarage and some sort of mental sickness. I didn't know the NHS did mental wellfair.

This is one thing that Americans don't seem to get about the NHS, mainly thanks to the Republicans completely skewing the facts. On the NHS, they don't just leave you to die. True, some treatments are available only in certain hospitals, and if required you can be transferred to a different hospital so you have access to those treatments, but at the very least the hospital will do all they can to get you better.

Yep, I have been moved from one hospital to another for better treatment, and also i've known people who have been put through operations, costing over £15,000.

But if there's one thing the NHS seems to have trouble with it's organ transplants. I've heard storys on the news of non UK citizens paying the NHS for organ transplants. That may not sound that bad to some, after all it funds the NHS, but as UK residents we pay for our public health care, regardless of weather or not we will need it, and we expect the NHS to put us first, when we do need them, infact we expect the NHS to serve only us.

About weather or not you would servive, i would give the the same chances as in America, The uk has child care and birth problem charitys, some of them are infact branches of the NHS.
These charitys' would help you regardless of the cost.