'Tell the USA your views on the NHS' poll results/discussion

the_grizz

Lets face it America will not vote for a soicialist type system, when half the politicians get backing from the insurance companys, American politicians are too busy imposing American Values on the rest of the world, they seem to forget to value thier own.

emmilee

Saucepot wrote: »

Hospital are filthy, people are better off steering clear. If you want to stay healthy, best thing to do is steer clear of doctors and hospitals.

I gather you've been reading the Daily Mirror, lol. Have you ever considered actually getting 1st hand experince of a hospital before making such sweeping statements?

adouglasmhor

The hospital I was in a couple of weeks ago was scrupulously clean despite being housed in an antiquated building, the new one replacing it will be open within a year. But I do see patients and visitors ignoring the precautions in place with complete abandon. Use the gel etc.

pookienoodle

What a difficult poll.
my husband has spinal problems and has had 2 NHS surgeries so far and will have more to come.
He has encountered many problems with NHS long waiting lists,cancelled ops,even his 6 week post op appointment will be at 11 weeks due to lack of consultants.
I have been a regular on several spinal forums with international posters.
In the U.S peple are having surgery denied by their health insurance when it is needed,it seems healthcare is only as good as your cover.
Also I have a 3 year old son and I know if he is unwell(but not in a life threatening condition) I can see my G.P without having to wait until pay day to pay the bill,for this I am thankful.

alimack66

Wayne1 wrote: »

There is a lot of hoo-ha about 50 million Americans not having medical insurance. As I understand it, this “Headline” designed to stir up all sorts of emotions, when looked at more closely has a different picture underneath it.
It seems that of the 50 million:

· One third are somewhere between the ages of 16 and mid twenties and have not got around to buying medical insurance yet – on the basis that the young always think that they will be Ok.

· One third has a household income of US$75,000+ (£46,000) and just do not bother to buy medical insurance.

· The remaining third, about 13 million people cannot afford to buy medical insurance.

This ignores the fact that the USA Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires that hospitals provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of ability to pay. And there there is no repayment requirement.

There are also the stories of American families paying US$600 per month for medical insurance. For a family of 4 this is equal to US$150 per person (£91.00). This raises the interesting point:

· That, if fantastic health treatment can be bought for £91 per person per month, why is our government spending/wasting so much money. Our health care spend on the NHS is about £100 billion, but at £91 per month per person for a 60 million population here in the UK it would only cost the nation £66 billion a whopping great saving of £34 billion. Something that moneysaving experts cannot fail to be impressed by.

We should also not forget that USA taxes are generally lower so spending on medical insurance is not the personal issue that we have here where some of the population is spending £3 billion+ on top of their taxes to buy private medical insurance for whatever their personal reasons are.

These figures are disingenuous at best.
I've been treated under both US and UK systems and the US was by far the worse.
Point by point:
· 16 -24 year olds still require cover whether they think they do or not, I have been at death's door with Crohn's disease by the age of 25. Why can you exclude this age group?
· £46,000 is very far from rich in the US, and given you can be bankrupted by one serious illness I don't think you can exclude this group either. Half of all US bankruptcies are caused by medical debt.
· Only 13 million - who cares about them, eh?

American ER rooms are only required to treat people who need emergency treatment and to stabilise them. Turn up with Crohn's disease and they'll turn you away. That means anyone without coverage is forced into late, expensive treatment and to suffer in pain until it becomes an emergency.

Your figures of $600 / month are the best possible case, try getting coverage with a pre-existing condition and watch your premiums sky-rocket or be turned away. Try getting sick and see what happens to your premiums. The NHS is the cheapest available healthcare in the developed world - 8% of GDP vs US 16%. (OECD figures). America's is the dearest, not money saving at all.

Medical insurance is very much a personal issue when they won't pay for your expensive treatment, or only part pay.

The US system is projected to bankrupt the Federal government if it carries on.
Money saving - I don't think so!

alimack66

the_grizz wrote: »

Lets face it America will not vote for a soicialist type system, when half the politicians get backing from the insurance companys, American politicians are too busy imposing American Values on the rest of the world, they seem to forget to value thier own.

They 're not being asked to vote for a socialist system - but for a system similar to Switzerland, insurance plus universal coverage. It's small but critical move.

taxi97w

Health Care Insurance? Don't make me laugh. Should be 'Health Services Insurance' and/or 'Insurance Services Insurance', as they are the ones who are completely covered.

If you don't buy complete and comprehensive insurance (mega bucks)- you may as well say you're not covered, as you don't know what's going to happen to you and what treatment you will be able to get until the time arrives.

If you buy comprehensive insurance and you're a healthy soul you may never need to claim, and think of all the dosh you've handed over to these parasites.

teddyco

There are good and bad elements in both the NHS and the American system.

What we need to do is get together and help each other improve both systems that will benefit both countries. Instead of bashing each other and throwing rocks across the pond, we need to use this opportunity to embrace the positives and reduce the negatives.

We all know that the NHS has some good points, but it fails miserably in other aspects. The American system is terribly expensive and one wouldn't dare be caught in the USA without health insurance, but also the Americans are on the cutting edge of medical technology, they produce some of the smartest doctors in the world and they are pioneers in surgical technique.

My father-in-law had a heart attack, and the surgeon used several technological advancements that came from the USA including a heart valve, and several arterial stints.

The American people have the right to be upset at the changes that are taking place and should fight as we should when our government tries to force things down our throat without our consent or vote. I think that's why the American people are angry at the moment.

I wish we could get upset about things more than we do in this country. We need to fight the good fight and stand up for what is right.

manchestermiss_2

it's far from perfect but then show me a system that could cover 60 million people that would be. I find it weird that people in a deeply religious country like America reconcile themselves to having 47 million people who have no form of health insurance and actively campaign against socialised healthcare as a form of communism! All seems very unchristian to me.

My husband and I both work for the NHS in front line jobs and some of the biggest faults as I seem them are too many managers and not enough essential staff. I find it deeply depressing when hospitals employ people to manage art. I don't know about you when I'm a patient what I want is a clean bed and ward, to have a decent surgeon who knows what he/she's doing and a nurse who is really interested in nursing me rather than a nice picture on the wall. I was a patient in hospital, not my own, earlier this month and I had an excellent surgeon, a lovely bunch of nurses, and a very clean ward - i didn't feel deprived because there were no pictures on the wall.

I also feel that some of the problems within the nhs are also cause by abuse of the system. Dealing with the aftermath of binge drinking in A&E on a friday/saturday night are a classic example - not only do they tie up A&E resources but emergency ambulances too (don't get me started on that one). My own personal bug bear people who've drank/smoke/ate/drugged their way to ill health who then turn up and expect the nhs to provide a miracle cure. I know people will say well how far do you take that, people who do sports etc? Quite - but at least you can argue they are exercising. Essentially your body is a machine and like any machine it will break down but you should have duty to care for it as far as you are able to alongside the NHS. I'm certainly not saying that alcoholics/drug addicts/smokers/obese people shouldn't receive treatment, but when you have cases of alcoholics receiving transplant livers over people who, through no fault of their own, have liver diseases I find that indefensible.

michaels

Is it not possible to have universal health coverage without having an NHS state run behemoth that is Europe's biggest employer?

AS long as taxation pays for your care does it matter whether you receive it in a state monopoly hospital or a private hospital - judging by the fact people are willing to pay a second time to go private I think the answer is obvious given the choice.

As others have said the Americans are not proposing setting up an nhs just ensuring that all their citizens are insured. Those in the US who who don't like this idea are using the NHS as an example of the downside risk when the state gets involved in medicine rather than taking the European example of state funding with private provision which is closer to what is proposed - if the NHS is so good (and so much better than publicly funded private provision) then surely they would use the alternative European system as their example of the pitfalls?