I'm going to England for my medical care...

Sorry, you don't qualify for free treatment. Keep paying your private subscriptions.

There's a fundamental problem here - healthcare is expensive. America has chosen its way of dealing with it: set the payments high, and reduce costs by excluding those who can't afford those high payments, or have long-term conditions, or any other trick the insurance companies can manage.

Britain has chosen to deal with it by minimising overheads and allocating resources to those with the most medical need. I'll take this system over the USA's any day. Frankly, the USA is barbaric, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

As to NHS waiting lists, etc, there's a very important factor - as this article describes, per-capita healthcare spending in the USA is $5,700 compared to $2,300 in Britain. So you're paying 2.5x as much, and covering less of the population. If you weren't managing at least some improved outcomes after heaping that much money on the problem and excluding as many people as you can, you'd have call to be even more embarrassed.

I'd certainly advocate increasing NHS spending in the UK. We're well down the league of industrialised countries in that department.

You've made an elementary error with your 21 million figure, by the way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Jun 27 2007, 08:50 AM) [snapback]468722[/snapback]</div>

You have little understanding of our not perfect healthcare system. The death toll from socialized medicine in scotland/england is staggaring. your 18 week on average wait time to initiate therapy is criminal. yes we have problems but at least we try to save lives and not look at human life as invoke a cost:benefit ratio that in your case always works against the human.

You want to increase state spending on your healthcare system - HOW? Your tax base is already straining - your growth rate is what?? you have imported how many poor and uneducated from third world countries who are economic drains on your system? And perhaps, the US of A should start forcing europe to start paying its fair share of defense costs (and I do admire and cherish the closeness of our two countries in foreign affairs) - that would put even greater financial strains on GB. It is a shame that pets in the US of A have better access to greater healthcare and technology here than do the subjects of the crown have in their own homeland Heck dogs here get an MRI or CT scan in a day, they get artificial hips done with NO waiting period..... that is pathetic. I have more MRI's, PET scanners, CT scanners here near my office in Manhattan than you have in all of England i would bet.

Name the latest greatest medical advance made in a British hospital or university.

Oh, by the way, I just love your universities boycott of Israeli universities and professors - real good, real smart, real British of you! You have much larger problems than your healthcare system!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 27 2007, 08:00 AM) [snapback]468725[/snapback]</div>

OK, here's your math lesson. The categories are not exclusionary. In other words, the same person can have private medical insurance and pay out of pocket (for things not even covered by their private plan). There are other combinations there too. So your number could be as high as double the real number. You can't do the math from that one source.

Public schools work. The vast majority of Americans graduate with adequate knowledge and skills. There are failures, but by and large it works. So why do people pay more for private schools? More one-on-one attention paid to their kid, greater opportunities, etc. This is how the health care works in the UK. Basic coverage is provided to everyone, but if you don't want to wait on that list, or take the cheaper treatment/drug, you should spend your money for extras.

And no matter what the numbers are, KMO is right. Health care is expensive no matter which way you choose to pay for it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 27 2007, 05:31 AM) [snapback]468713[/snapback]</div>

..And the above statement is the crux of our problems: if US lawmakers etc were using the same system that the rest of us do including Medicare retirement, there would be no problems since they would actually CARE to make the system functional.

Edit:
I don’t really care how UK chooses to kill their patients; I do care how King-Drew hospital in Los Angeles kills ours.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 27 2007, 09:19 AM) [snapback]468742[/snapback]</div>

I remember reading last year that the diagnostic wait times in the UK hid the real wait times for the treaments of things like breast cancer. Women whose doctors suspect that they have breast cancer routinely waited 4 months or more before diagnostic scans are performed and they are actually diagnosed with cancer. And then the wait for treatment begins.

As the Canadian Supreme Court said in 2005: "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 27 2007, 08:19 AM) [snapback]468742[/snapback]</div>

I see the venue has moved

As others have pointed out, picking at flaws in the UK system does nothing to defend the U.S.'s system. The fact remains that the UK is ranked 18th in the world and the US is ranked 37th. Fewer people die in the UK than die in the USA. Fewer babies die in the UK than die in the USA. Why because in the UK they treat everyone not just those that have money. The standard of care may be a bit less than what a high-roller can get in the US but the population as a whole does better. In the UK you may have to wait a year for a hip replacement. In the US if you don't have insurance you can't get a hip replacement. Which person is better off?

Yes the U.S. has great healthcare, the best in the world, if you have the money. If you don't have the money you have no healthcare. If you are somewhere in the middle you have sick care, but no preventative medicine. All of this despite spending on average twice as much on healthcare per capita.

 

it took months from the time i found a lump in my breast until they did the biopsy correctly and diagnosed it as benign. right here in the USA. and i paid quite a bit of money for it in the end.

we routinely wait a month or more to see specialists for DH's back troubles. i faxed his case history to one of the specialists here 2 weeks ago, DH got a call a couple days ago and set up an appointment for early august. by then, we have less than a month before we have to cough up another huge deductible on our insurance so we're going to have to really push them hard to get him in for any recommended procedures asap... but i suspect we're just screwed again.

all this in the "city of medicine"

 

And how fast do you get scans and treatment in the USA if you can't afford insurance? What do that 16% of the population do?

And if you are being treated for cancer, what do you do if you lose your insurance due to losing your job? Is there any law to stop a new insurer charging you higher premiums or refusing you due to a pre-existing condition?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 27 2007, 03:57 PM) [snapback]468797[/snapback]</div>

Explain for me please - are they actually expecting you to still cough up a large lump of your treatment costs? If they're not covering everything, it's hardly very good "insurance"...

A small $100 deductable on home or car insurance is one thing, but if they're asking serious money on medical treatment, that's barbaric. :blink: Do you lose your no claims bonus???

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Jun 27 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]468798[/snapback]</div>

well, everyone has different insurance. for anything other than an office visit, we pay $1000 out of pocket before our benefits kick in, then we pay 20% of the negotiated cost. the insurance does negotiate a lower cost if you're a member of their plan. there is no "no claims" bonus like on car insurance, since that would discourage people from getting their regular checkups i presume.

our office visits are $20 or $40 depending on who we're going to- but when you finally get in to their patient rosters and you're unfortunate enough to need to see a bunch of specialists in a week, a few times it has added up to more than the income than we made that week. and they do limit the number of times they will pay for you to see a specialist each plan year. i think we'll probably have to pay a few of those out of our own pockets this year.

last year we nearly lost everything we worked so hard for, thanks to the medical bills. i hope we don't hit that point again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 27 2007, 08:31 AM) [snapback]468713[/snapback]</div>

Wow Speachless..... :blink: :blink:

My take is that the OP is pointing out the fact that so many Libs are claiming how GREAT goverment paid medical care is in other countries, and how bad we have it here in the US having to pay for ins.

Then the OP is showing everyone the other side of the coin, the problems with England & Canada's health care system that the average public may not know about.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jun 27 2007, 10:52 AM) [snapback]468795[/snapback]</div>

Well, this is all just a guess on my part, but it would be an example of how a one-off statistic such as "infant mortality rate" may not give an accurate picture.

The Infant Mortality Rate defined as the number of deaths of infants up to one year old per 1,000 live births. Extensive prenatal care is widely available in the US, and is highly encouraged by insurance companies, often with no deductible, because good prenatal care can produce healthy children and reduce insurance payouts later. One result of extensive prenatal care is the detection and the addressing of problems that might have otherwise resulted in a still born baby (and therefore not a live birth). For instance, it's not that uncommon these days for a doctor to detect a problem in a fetus and prematurely induce labor or perform a cesarian so that the baby can be treated outside the womb. These are live births that might have otherwise been still born if not for the prenatal care and intravention. But they are not necessarily healthy babies and are much more likely to die during their first year.

The UK has an infant mortality rate of 5.0 deaths per 1000 live births. The US has a rate of 6.4 per 1000. Could a difference of 1.4 deaths per 1000 live births be a result of prenatal intravention due to the greater availablity of extensive prenatal care in the US? I don't know. I'd have to see more data. But it is a good hypothesis.

 

let me try to understand this. we do not like our healthcare system now because its not perfect so lets adopt a system we know is also not any closer to perfect than ours?

how about these simple fixes before we throw out the baby with the bath water...

1. change the US tax code to allow INDIVIDUALS to deduct the cost of their healthcare insurance.

1b. allow individuals to purchase insurance in groups / to form buying cooperatives.

2. change medical malpractice to no-fault - speed up the process of correcting wrongs and allow for the money allocated to the injured to be paid out in an annuity form - and keep it all for the patient and not lose 40% to costs like attorney's fees

two simple yet profound changes that will change the dynamics of US healthcare and still allow for us to remains the worlds leader in medicine.

also remember that healthcare is a huge portion of the US economy - any dramatic change can have dramatic effects on our economy - and i believe for all you cynical people out there physicians salaries comprises less than 5% of that total.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Jun 27 2007, 10:00 AM) [snapback]468798[/snapback]</div>

You don't get scans and treatments in the USA if you don't have insurance or can't afford to pay. The poor also have no access to medication. Most doctors offices that you visit now require you to show your insurance card or pay before seeing the doctor. If you can't pay, the doctor won't see you. That is why the poor in the USA go to the hospital emergency room. While this is suppose to be only for people with sudden life-threatening conditions it is usually full of the poor trying to get treatment for their chronic conditions. The doctors must look at you but they don't have to treat you unless the condition is life-threatening so again, the poor get no treatment. If the condition is life-threatening then the hospital must treat you. An example would be an auto-accident or gunshot. I'm talking about the working poor here. The very poor have a government run program called Medicaid, the elderly have a government run program called Medicare.

As someone else said, all insurance coverage is different. Mine is provided by my wife's employer and costs us about $200 per month to purchase the coverage. A doctors visit is $20 and their is no limit per year. Prescriptions cost $20. If we are in the hospital or have surgery then it is 10% / 90%.

You also need to be especially careful that the doctors you visit are covered by your insurance. You may visit one doctor and he sends you to another doctor for additional treatment. Though the doctors may be in the same building or hospital, they might not be both covered by your insurance. My wife found out this the hard way after she had knee surgery. The physical therapist the the surgeon referred her too was in the same building right next to his office. My wife visited the therapist for a month before we received the first bill that the insurance company had rejected because it was "out of network". Because it was "out-of-network" we had to pay 50% of the bill instead of only $20 per visit which totaled about $2000.

I have also found that the insurance company tends to alway reject things the first time even if it is something that your policy covers. This is just to see if you will accept the rejection and pay the bill yourself. All in all I find insurance to be a very crooked business.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 27 2007, 11:12 AM) [snapback]468848[/snapback]</div>

A stillborn is not counted against infant mortality. The infant must show signs of life to be considered. It is true that the USA uses a more stringent definition for infant mortality and this is part of the reason why the US has a high rate. In the US any infant that shows signs of life and then dies is added to the infant mortality figure. This is regardless of term or weight. Some other develop countries have rules that define when the infant is defined as an infant. Some depend on weight, some term, some length, some a combination. This is PART of the reason the US has a high infant mortality figure compared to other counties.

I believe the main reason is still the lack of healthcare for the poor. Yes, prenatal care is extensive and very low cost or free for those that have insurance and those on Medicaid. However, if you are part on the millions of working poor that do not have insurance then you have no prenatal care. Remember the poor have much higher birthrates then the wealthy so the children the the uninsured would be a disproportionate number of the infants that die.

 

I'm a member of an HMO: Kaiser.

It's not perfect. It does take me weeks to get an appointment to my primary care physician when there isn't something seriously wrong with me. But if I do have an emergency I can go there and someone will see me.

When my chiropractor suggested an MRI on my back to make sure nothing was going on there to cause my Piriformis it took 9 weeks to get the MRI.

When a routine mammogram found a small lump in my breast, they had me in there the next day for an ultrasound.

When I went to the emergency room with abdominal pain I was admitted within 30 min. and my appendix was removed within 12 hours.

I have a $5 copay for my medications and I now have a $5 copay for every appointment. It used to be free; now I have a copay.

This cost me about $450 a month. I never see it because the cost is deducted before I get my paycheck. Because our school district is so large they can negotiate with Kaiser. The district has over 6,000 teachers alone. Add the clerical and administrators and it's more than double that I'm sure.

Now what kind of negotiating could the State of California do if it were negotiating for the residents of California? You want to talk about profit? I'll bet the medical businesses in California would like nothing better than to be part of California's "socialized" medicine.

And you can't compare what we'll come up with with the systems in Canada, UK, Scotland or Germany. Each has is run their own way. And no matter what system you have, there are going to be incidents where it doesn't work. But taken as a whole it's better than having nothing at all.

 

It appears to me that some on this thread always have the money for healthcare, which is great for you. My wife and I both have health insurance through our places of employment, but if something happens to us, we would have to pay 1200 dollars before insurance kicks in, then pay certain percentages thereafter (usually we would pay 25-50% on everything). There are all sorts of maximums, limitations, and caveats for every medical treatment that is covered also. In the meantime, we still pay 100 dollars a month in out of pocket costs for our premium (that is 1200 dollars a year, and much less than what I know a lot of people pay), while our places of employment pay an addition $200 dollars a month (2400 dollars a year). So we already pay 3600 dollars a year, directly and indirectly, even if we never see a doctor; and the only thing we get complete coverage for without paying the deductible first is a few services under preventative care (which does NOT include a lot of preventative care). If I or her get sick, and we go to the doctor to make sure it isn't serious and they run a couple lab tests, we are responsible for almost the entire cost (about 130$ for a 20 minute visit). So, we don't go to the doctor when we are sick anymore, paying 130 dollars twice a year is too much money just to make sure we don't have some serious disease. Dental insurance is similar. We get free cleanings twice a year (which is great) and an xray here and there, but if any work needs to be done we get hit with a hefty cost. My wife just got 4 'ceilings' on her teeth, which is listed as preventative care by the insurance company themselves, but we still had to pay 350 dollars of the 380 dollar cost (insurance lowered our cost by 30$ and paid nothing). The same procedure for a dependent child is 50% covered (again, for PREVENTATIVE care), but for an adult, nothing! My wife and I make about the median household income for our region, but we couldn't pay the medical bills we would owe if we needed real treatment, unless we maxed out credit cards. I have no idea what the half of the population that makes less than us (and have children) would do if they needed treatment. The saying in the US is that you get the medical procedures that your insurance dictates, if your insurance doesn't allow for something, then you don't get treated (unless your rich, of course). There is no doubt in my mind why about half of all personal bankruptcies are filed due to medical bills. It is shameful!

Healthcare is expensive. My value system lies along the lines that everyone should get healthcare regardless of income or employment. Just because the wealthier 1/5 of this country has access to the best healthcare in the world, doesn't mean that the other 4/5 should have their healthcare access limited to what insurance provides and/or what they can personally afford, just so the top 1/5 could have lower taxes.