Healthcare in the UK vs United States?

anguk · 2 November 2009 at 1:27AM

I personally have only needed hospital treatment when I've been pregnant and the odd few visits to my GP, however my husband has certainly had more than his moneys worth! He has dialysis 3 times a week, gets all his medication free (insulin dependant diabetic) and is also a leg amputee. I dread to think how much all of his treatment would have cost if we'd had to pay for it, I don't even think he'd be able to get health insurance because of existing conditions.

I'm a member on an amputee forum, there's quite a few American member and I'm often shocked at the trouble they have getting treatment & prosthetics. My husband gets his prosthetic leg and anything to do with it free, if he needs a re-fit or has a problem he just rings his Prosthetists for an appointment. He gets as many fittings as he needs and he gets the prosthetic leg that he needs.

Amputees in America seem to have a constant battle with their insurers. They'll pay out for one leg but anything extra (socks, liners etc) is often not covered. They need to get permission from their insurers to get a re-fit and many resort to fixing their own false legs because of the cost!

The NHS has it's faults (too many chiefs not enough indians, red tape, government interference and a lot of wasted money) but I think we're very lucky to have it.

duchy · 2 November 2009 at 1:47AM

Depends on your outlook. I've being discussing these issues with friends on another site most of whom are Americans.
For me the biggest difference is if I lose my job (or have my hours cut below 40-US employers don't have to provide medical benefits below 40 hours) or have any medical condition that could be deemed pre-existing I will still get the best possible treatment if I have a serious condition that needs treatment without having to make a decision and choose between paying for medical treatment or food/bills .

I do have private medical cover too which I've used to gain quicker access to services for non life threatening treatment -as an example my son needed a minor op -eight weeks wait to even see the specialist-then at least the same again for the op itself. I went privately -saw the same consultant at a private hospital 2 days later and the op was scheduled for the following week. As his condition was affecting his development (was affecting his hearing so delaying his speech) I considered this to be a huge benefit.

On the other hand my mother who was on a very low income had a brain anurism and was treated by the top head injuries centre in the country -operations, weeks in intensive care, rehab the whole nine yards-and it cost her not a penny. In the US she'd have lost her home to pay for even part of this treatment-the reality of her situation was without an imediate op she'd have died.

I have friends in the US who have no insurance as the cost is prohibitive due to previous conditions like kidney transplants or childhood heart conditions as well as more common issues like diabites. Others have lost jobs in the current recession and simply can't afford COBRA .To me it's shocking that the most vunerable are left unable to afford preventative care even if emergency treatment is provided later. It's a proven fact that preventative care saves many thousands of hours of expensive treatments and drugs even before the social cost is included.

If you can be 100% sure you will never lose your job or that no member of your family will ever develop a condition that might reoccur later then the current system probably works for you in the US -if you're not so sure or find any concern that the richest nation in the world currently has millions of people unable to afford to access adequate healthcare-then the reforms make sense.

Morglin · 2 November 2009 at 6:00AM

leaptocheap wrote: »

As an American, I'm am interested in hearing what citizens of the UK think about the Healthcare that they receive?

Are you satisfied with what your government provides?

Do many people purchase private health insurance coverage in addition to what they receive from the government?

What do you feel the quality of care is that you received from the government health coverage?

Do you feel that you are taxed more than the benefits that you receive are worth?

What would route would you suggest that the United States should take?

To most Americans you UK Healthcare is a mystery to them. All we receive is political hype and sound bytes. In the end it is what the citizens think that really matters.

Thanks very much in advance
- Chet Scott

Our NHS isn't perfect, by any means, but I have to say that I wouldn't like any other system.

I have had major input from it over a lot of years, all of it free of cost, and overall, they have been fine.:T

I hae had problems with them, but I expect that would have happened even if I'd have been a private patient.

The two main issues at the moment in the UK are cleanliness of hospitals and the poor standard of nursing care in SOME hospitals, which really does need to be sorted out.

But, I have a friend, in Chicago, who's husband has ALS and it has been such a hassle getting the treatments approved by their inusrance company - everything is an issue!

So, on top of the strain of a degenerative disease, they have also had to fight with their insurers - not my idea of fun!

I don't know why some Americans appear so hostile to a state funded healthcare system for all.

Surely it's better to have it in place and then at least there is the choice of either state or private care.

Lin

Generali · 2 November 2009 at 6:26AM

leaptocheap wrote: »

As an American, I'm am interested in hearing what citizens of the UK think about the Healthcare that they receive?

Are you satisfied with what your government provides?

Do many people purchase private health insurance coverage in addition to what they receive from the government?

What do you feel the quality of care is that you received from the government health coverage?

Do you feel that you are taxed more than the benefits that you receive are worth?

What would route would you suggest that the United States should take?

To most Americans you UK Healthcare is a mystery to them. All we receive is political hype and sound bytes. In the end it is what the citizens think that really matters.

Thanks very much in advance
- Chet Scott

I am an Englishman who has spent a lot of time in other countries and now resides in Australia.

IME, the quality of care received from the NHS is generally poor. The hospitals are dirty, the standard of care from non-doctors can vary from very good to non-existant, seemingly dependant on the whim of the particular ward you are in or even the nurse on duty.

Receptionists generally view themselves with a job to allow as few patients as possible access to healthcare.

Rationing is done by queuing rather than by price so even simple procedures with big quality of life gains can have waiting lists in excess of a year.

If the US (or any other country for that matter) was looking at a 'socialist' medical system, I'd look at a co-contribution model (as exists in Australia for example). It isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than the NHS.

Morglin · 2 November 2009 at 6:56AM

NHS patients will be able to access private health care, free of charge, if the wait is over 18 weeks:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224274/Patients-private-health-care-NHS-wait-long-treatment.html

I don't know how long you have been gone from the UK, but I do have to say that things, generally, have massively improved in the last 10 years, in most ways.

Lin

Dr.Rock · 2 November 2009 at 10:42AM

Morglin wrote: »

I don't know why some Americans appear so hostile to a state funded healthcare system for all.

Because those that are shouting loudest and who are in the most influential positions are the ones who currently make themselves a lot of money from the current system.

LondonDiva wrote: »

I have to take issue with this 'too many managers and admin' carp that gets trotted out each time there's a discussion about the NHS.

You cannot run a hospital or health body with doctors alone. The NHS actually has less administrative staff than is needed to make things better.

Absolutely right. You will find most NHS establishments have FEWER admin staff than are required which puts pressure on the existing staff, and the jobs which are getting cut are admin jobs reducing the number further.
Whilst there may seem to be a lot of "managers" in the NHS the problem is more that business processes and roles aren't clearly defined so the management isn't at it's most effective. It may be that fewer managers are needed, or just that better managers are needed.

Broken_hearted · 2 November 2009 at 10:50AM

The NHS is wonderful without it we could never afford to go to the doctors or get the kids medication when they get sick. Yes it has issues as do all companies with limited funds including insurance companies, I would fear getting ill under the American system.

pinkshoes · 2 November 2009 at 11:18AM

In terms of minor illnesses, then the GP system works well. Just phone, you can usually get an appointment that day, or if you're too ill to leave the house you can have a phone appointment. Prescriptions about £7, contraceptives free, and I think you can pay a 1 off fee of about £100 which covers an entire year of prescriptions.

If you need to see a specialist, then that's another matter! I had an illness that left me with a very poor quality of life. On the NHS it was a 3 month wait to see a consultant, then a 9 month wait for the operation I needed. Thankfully I had private health with my job, so I saw a consultant within 2 weeks, and had the operation 2 weeks later. I'm much better now, and if it wasn't for private health (BUPA), I would have had to put my life on hold for an entire year.

We pay a fair amount in tax, and sadly the government spend 25% of that on benefits and handouts, but hopefully that will be changing soon...

The NHS also has too many managers doing bureaucratic paperwork stuff, rather than money being spent on those that actually do the good work!

Fire_Fox · 2 November 2009 at 11:35AM

leaptocheap wrote: »

As an American, I'm am interested in hearing what citizens of the UK think about the Healthcare that they receive?

Are you satisfied with what your government provides?

Do many people purchase private health insurance coverage in addition to what they receive from the government?

What do you feel the quality of care is that you received from the government health coverage?

Do you feel that you are taxed more than the benefits that you receive are worth?

What would route would you suggest that the United States should take?

To most Americans you UK Healthcare is a mystery to them. All we receive is political hype and sound bytes. In the end it is what the citizens think that really matters.

Thanks very much in advance
- Chet Scott

I'm not going to answer all your questions, but instead to confess that I work for the biggest employer in Europe ... the NHS, so obviously I am biased.

The one thing I would add is that we were informed on one course I attended that US citizens pay almost twice as much per capita for their healthcare than we do here in the UK (IIRC it was 22% and 12%). Bear in mind that you have huge number of families living on very low incomes (trailer parks etc.) who are clearly not contributing to either public or private services, then I can't see how the burden isn't crippling middle income households.

My parents are presently touring the States in their camper van and met a professional family, by our standards upper middle class. Their daughter was in a serious road traffic accident which left her left permanently disabled. The family had medical insurance but quickly hit the couple of million dollars ceiling and are now left selling everything to finance their daughters ongoing therapy. :eek:

Just to add to what PinkShoes says about paying too much in tax .... I worked in the NHS under the last Conservative government and, in some hospitals, things were indeed getting to the stage that Generali alludes to. The current Labour government had to DOUBLE funding to the NHS in their first five years or so to get back to where we are today. We really don't pay that much in taxes if you look to the US system (22% of income on healthcare alone) or Sweden/ Denmark (48% taxation for all public services).

robin_banks · 2 November 2009 at 11:36AM

Dr.Rock wrote: »

Because those that are shouting loudest and who are in the most influential positions are the ones who currently make themselves a lot of money from the current system.

Absolutely right. You will find most NHS establishments have FEWER admin staff than are required which puts pressure on the existing staff, and the jobs which are getting cut are admin jobs reducing the number further.
Whilst there may seem to be a lot of "managers" in the NHS the problem is more that business processes and roles aren't clearly defined so the management isn't at it's most effective. It may be that fewer managers are needed, or just that better managers are needed.

1 million ish emplyed by the NHS, 200,000 admin staff of which 40,000 managers.

Of course some front line staff will have paperwork to complete.

Healthcare in the UK vs United States?

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free