Healthcare in the UK vs United States?

Sultana

like many government bodies it's become bloated with managers and admin staff however

The insurance based system in the US has an extra layer of admin, just to deal with insurance companies. And of course those insurance companies have their own admin staff.....

instaunt

leaptocheap wrote: »

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.

Not really, that's the problem with the NHS. What we think doesn't matter in the slightest.

With private care, doctors malpractice insurance goes up and their bosses get mad if they even mildly injure someone. Here in the UK a doctor can kill several people through blatant negligence and they don't even get a slap on the wrists. (No, not an exaggeration.)

In the US the doctors are allowed to diagnose patients. Here in the UK their mandate is to keep costs low. That's why we have the highest cancer death rates in Europe - diagnose late, none of those pesky expensive cancer drugs to pay for ... not that the NHS pays out for the good drugs anyway! (Personal experience with 3 family members and 1 friend dying from cancer that should have been diagnosed and treated.)

In the US if you are injured and need to go to the emergency room you can. Here in the UK, in some emergency rooms they turn you away if you have not phoned NHS Direct first. (Personal experience that one, ribs sticking out and you're not allowed in to the emergency room unless you've phone the central office to tell them that ribs are sticking out and they okay you going to the emergeny room. 3 nurses and 2 doctors standing around an empty emergency room chatting whilst you try to hold the phone to your ear and explain your problem to some secretary who puts you on hold.)

In the US, if you get in to an emergency room you probably see a doctor the same day, you're not left in agony without so much as a paracetamol for 24 hours because the one and only doctor on duty is too busy ... and they at least speak english and don't require a translator I'm assuming?

Private healthcare insurance has it's flaw and outprices many people. But I would say that excellent healthcare for the majority of people is far better than bad healthcare for everyone and more and more people in the UK are switching. People whinge about the cost of private healthcare insurance but you can bet those people can still afford cigarettes and a booze binge every other weekend.

I'd be happier if there were more private hospitals/facilities so we had the option of not going to the NHS. Then, if you don't want to dies ... I mean, don't want NHS care and can afford private insurance then great. If not, the old NHS system is there for you.

Rant over.

MissMoneypenny

Generali wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't like to rely on the Australian healthcare system.

My Australian sister told me that in Australia you must never call an ambulance if you have accident as you have to pay for it! It shocked her when she found that out as she was used to the UK system of no charge for an ambulance. She had to pay a lot of money for her childrens braces and glasses too. In the UK children get those for free.

An Australian friend told me that the the Australian healthcare system does not include operations like knee operations. She said that as insurance for that was expensive, they tended to get insurance to cover those extras when they got older and they chanced it for their children. Fortunately, her family made a load of money when they sold land as Sydney grew, but not so good for those that can't afford to pay.

The NHS may have its faults, but at least we don't have to get into debt to pay for our families healthcare, or worse......go without it.

BitterAndTwisted

Actually, the NHS can and sometimes do levy a charge for calling an ambulance, but luckily for most of us they choose not to more often than not. Just try being a non-EU visitor in need of one......

beverley1471

i think the NHS does a good job overall, it does vary from area to area but i think its a better system than the American, as at least everyone has access to healthcare. Unlike in America where some have no access to any healthcare and die of preventable diseases. I think the people of the UK and america should help themselves more with their health, but thats another topic.

When the conservatives win the election next time funding will be cut to the NHS and it'll go back to waiting two plus years for elective surgery, like the last time they were in power.

MissMoneypenny

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Actually, the NHS can and sometimes do levy a charge for calling an ambulance, but luckily for most of us they choose not to more often than not. Just try being a non-EU visitor in need of one......

You should have healthcare travel insurance when you visit other countries.

BitterAndTwisted

Agreed. I always do even if it's only leaving the country for a day or two. Crossed fingers don't always work

iolanthe07

No matter how bad the service from the NHS can be, it's a million times better than anything available in the USA to ordinary, working people.

This isn't correct. I lived in the US for five years in the 90's, and the medical care was outstanding (I was with Blue Shield of California), much better than here. Even poor people received medical care through a program called 'Medi-Cal', which equated to our NHS. We found the charges and co-payments manageable, though you do need to negotiate a bit.

dmg24

melancholly wrote: »

i also wonder what mental health care there can be in a system like the US - now i think it's the aspect of the NHS care that is worst, but it's still functioning (it's far from perfect though and not as good for PR as baby units and cancer wards - which are both hugely important - i just mean that it isn't something most of the voting public thinks about much!). if you have a condition that means you can't work and are socially stigmatised anyway, how on earth do you pay for treatment?

MHcare is very good in the US if you have insurance at the time of diagnosis. If not, you either pay in the same way you would her if going private, or you ... go to the streets? I don't know the stats off the top of my head, but a great proportion of homeless people in the US are those that have severe MH problems. The same applies to the UK homelessness population, but not nearly to the same extent.

I understand that this is something Obama is working towards at the moment - getting pre existing conditions covered more easily/ in a more cost effective way.

I have had my issues with the NHS before, both as a patient and as a manager. However, recent experiences have demonstrated that the NHS comes into its own when people need it most. The support, respect and care shown to those towards the end of their life (and their loved ones) is second to none. No amount of money could pay for that.

dmg24

Generali wrote: »

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.

You sound like a typical Daily Mail reader generali.