New NHS report

[Tealeaf]

This is from Wikipedia. Its all about US healthcare and it makes grim reading:

Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. More is spent on health care in the United States on a per capita basis than in any other nation in the world.[1][2] A study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and that the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S.[3] Medical debt is the principal cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States,[4] weakening the whole economy.

According to data compiled and published by the international pharmaceutical industry , the US is the world leader in biomedical research and development as well as the introduction of new biomedical products; pharmaceutical industry trade organizations also maintain that the high cost of health care in the U.S. has encouraged substantial reinvestment in such research and development.[5][6][7][8] Despite that, the US pays twice as much yet lags other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, which are among the most widely collected, hence useful, international comparative statistics. For 2006-2010, the USA's life expectancy will lag 38th in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[9]

Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[10][11] The WHO study has been criticized, in an article published in Health Affairs, for its failure to include the satisfaction ratings of the general public.[12] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[13] The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries.[nb 1][14] According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).[15][16]

In summary, your healthcare system sucks, as they say over there.

[cashman]

probably only to the "Have Nots" Tealeaf.

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by cashman

probably only to the "Have Nots" Tealeaf.

No, it sucks for 'em all, Cashy. They spend about 16% of their GDP on healthcare which is roughly twice that of the UK. About half of that 16% is actually government expenditure on Medicare and Medicaid (covering only the old and the poor); for that we cover everyone. So that means they're paying their taxes as well as their private insurance - double bubble! And what do they get in return? By international comparisons, third world healthcare.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

No, it sucks for 'em all, Cashy. They spend about 16% of their GDP on healthcare which is roughly twice that of the UK. About half of that 16% is actually government expenditure on Medicare and Medicaid (covering only the old and the poor); for that we cover everyone. So that means they're paying their taxes as well as their private insurance - double bubble! And what do they get in return? By international comparisons, third world healthcare.

but does that matter to the "Haves"? they probably swim along blindly thinking all is well in their world.

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by cashman

but does that matter to the "Haves"? they probably swim along blindly thinking all is well in their world.

Aye, they probably do.....until the time comes when they have a serious accident or develop a chronic illness or lose their job with it's cover or find they've not read the small print in their insurance policies and then they suddenly find get nowt.

[bullseyebarb]

What a hard and lonely slog it can be on this site when trying to explain to you good folks why it is such a bad idea to relinquish to the state those things which should be the responsibility of every fully functioning adult. I have always been of the opinion that there is no problem so bad that government cannot make it even worse.

I don't have time this morning to rebut every assertion you have made because I'm flying out to California shortly and won't be back online for quite a while. First of all, the U.S. has the best medical care in the world. Yes, we generally pay too much - due to some of the reasons I have already mentioned on this thread, as well as others in the past. Americans have a high degree of satisfaction with the medical services they receive and 80% of them do have insurance - although they would like to have more flexibility in that area. Of those remaining, you have the young and healthy who forego insurance because they choose to spend their money elsewhere, those who can afford to pay out of pocket, the millions of illegal aliens and people who are temporarily between jobs or long-term unemployed.

The WHO stats are skewed. For example, in the matter of infant mortality, the U.S. counts every birth. Other countries don't count as live births infants below a certain weight or gestational age because they aren't as likely to survive. Once beyond infancy, America catches up with the average life expectancy stats. We have much higher survival rates for all types of cancer as well as heart disease. Far in excess of the U.K. (which has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.)

Countries with government-run healthcare save money by relying on the U.S. to pay the research and development costs for new medical technologies and medications. Doctors in the U.K. are paid less and have less autonomy than those in the U.S. The last time I checked, one in every nine Canadian doctors come to the U.S. to practice. Others spend at least a portion of each year here. America is a very dynamic and complicated country. We also have a much larger and diverse population than you do. If our government ever succeeds in implementing socialized medicine here, it will be a spectacular failure.

[claytonender]

......... ........

[Eric]

Originally Posted by claytonender

......... ........

You seem confused. Don't forget that there is a strong current of "screw you bud, I'm alright" among priveleged Americans. I think Barb is leading a campaign to change the motto of the US from "E Pluribus Unum" to something like "Chacun pour soi" ... if the American poor want health care, they can always join the military and get their asses shot off in places like Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Eric

You seem confused. Don't forget that there is a strong current of "screw you bud, I'm alright" among priveleged Americans. I think Barb is leading a campaign to change the motto of the US from "E Pluribus Unum" to something like "Chacun pour soi" ... if the American poor want health care, they can always join the military and get their asses shot off in places like Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Hey there, Mr. Cheapshot. Whatever you do, don't let the facts get in your way. You may scoff at my opinions but at least they are based on the actual experience of having lived with a variety of delivery systems, including the British NHS. If your NHS is superior and more equitable, how come so many Canadians come to the U.S. for medical care? And let's not forget all of those Canadian doctors and nurses now working in American hospitals.

As for your little crack about our military personnel - what place does that have on a thread about the NHS? I realize that it has long been in vogue to pigeonhole every member of the U.S. military as some poverty-stricken, ill educated rube. But you, sir, ought to be ashamed for indulging in such language.

For your edification, my husband came from a solid middle-class family and interrupted his education in order to enlist in the U.S. Army. He volunteered to serve in Viet Nam. It has been my priviledge to know many of the men he served with. They returned home and went on to have successful careers, long-term marriages and raise decent, productive children. I am confident that those currently serving will do the same.

[armani]

NHS rules

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

What a hard and lonely slog it can be on this site when trying to explain to you good folks why it is such a bad idea to relinquish to the state those things which should be the responsibility of every fully functioning adult. I have always been of the opinion that there is no problem so bad that government cannot make it even worse.

I'll tell you why it is a hard slog for you Bullseyebarb...60-70yrs ago citizens in this country had to pay direct for any health care which the vast majority of "fully functioning" adults could not afford for themselves nor their children.. that is why the NHS was formed...get it?

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Mancie

I'll tell you why it is a hard slog for you Bullseyebarb...60-70yrs ago citizens in this country had to pay direct for any health care which the vast majority of "fully functioning" adults could not afford for themselves nor their children.. that is why the NHS was formed...get it?

I do get it. That's the point. All I am attempting to do here is make you think outside the box. I was hoping that Eric would have weighed in by now, since my previous post was directed at him. To my knowledge, he has never explained why residents of any country with a National Health Service should ever find it necessary to travel to the U.S. for medical treatment. It's a simple enough question - but perhaps the answer is too difficult for him to spin.

I predate the advent of the British NHS. I was born into a typical working class family of the period. Growing up, I had my share of childhood illnesses and accidents. Yet, (amazingly, if your account is to be believed), my parents somehow managed to procure the services of a physician whenever necessary. I guess they considered that to be a priority. And they were far from alone in that.

The inherent danger of allowing government to take over such a critical aspect of life is that it can then exert a tremendous amount of control over you. The issue becomes a political weapon and a dandy vote buying tool. They own you. Acquiescence in one area only encourages the government to expand its role and pretty soon they are into everything....and taxing you up the wazoo for the priviledge.

Can you at least be honest enough to admit that?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

I do get it. That's the point. All I am attempting to do here is make you think outside the box. I was hoping that Eric would have weighed in by now, since my previous post was directed at him. To my knowledge, he has never explained why residents of any country with a National Health Service should ever find it necessary to travel to the U.S. for medical treatment. It's a simple enough question - but perhaps the answer is too difficult for him to spin.

I predate the advent of the British NHS. I was born into a typical working class family of the period. Growing up, I had my share of childhood illnesses and accidents. Yet, (amazingly, if your account is to be believed), my parents somehow managed to procure the services of a physician whenever necessary. I guess they considered that to be a priority. And they were far from alone in that.

The inherent danger of allowing government to take over such a critical aspect of life is that it can then exert a tremendous amount of control over you. The issue becomes a political weapon and a dandy vote buying tool. They own you. Acquiescence in one area only encourages the government to expand its role and pretty soon they are into everything....and taxing you up the wazoo for the priviledge.

Can you at least be honest enough to admit that?

Just checked this one ... I don't know of anyone who finds it "necessary" to visit the US for health care. No doubt, there are well-heeled Canadians who go there and pay for whatever service they need without having to wait ... and waiting times in Canada are getting shorter all the time; I had to wait about three weeks for my surgery. Much of that time was taken up by visits to one or the other of the two major hospitals in our city for pre op testing .... after the surgery, I had three days in ICU and ten days in hospital. When I went home, I had home care. Cost to me ... nothing. Admitedly, there are a few extra cents tax on cigs, booze, and gas.

But it seems to me that your argument is not about the level of medical care .... you so serenely ignore the WHO stats ... but about your paranoid fear of your own govt., or of any govt. Seems like, for you, this is a conspiracy theory thing and should be debated in "Anything Goes"

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Eric

Just checked this one ... I don't know of anyone who finds it "necessary" to visit the US for health care. No doubt, there are well-heeled Canadians who go there and pay for whatever service they need without having to wait ... and waiting times in Canada are getting shorter all the time; I had to wait about three weeks for my surgery. Much of that time was taken up by visits to one or the other of the two major hospitals in our city for pre op testing .... after the surgery, I had three days in ICU and ten days in hospital. When I went home, I had home care. Cost to me ... nothing. Admitedly, there are a few extra cents tax on cigs, booze, and gas.

But it seems to me that your argument is not about the level of medical care .... you so serenely ignore the WHO stats ... but about your paranoid fear of your own govt., or of any govt. Seems like, for you, this is a conspiracy theory thing and should be debated in "Anything Goes"

Perhaps you don't, but it's still going on....and it isn't just the wealthy who come down here for care. Even your own government often finds it necessary to send Canadian patients to American hospitals for treatment. And you
only have a population of 34 million. Dr. Anne Doig, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said this year that your NHS was "imploding." Canadian doctors agree.

I ignore nothing - serenely or otherwise.

The U.K. is already considering changing their system as they cannot continue to give "free" care to everyone. They suggest an emphasis on prevention rather than curing. Looks like they are out to target smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly....for starters.
Remember, he who holds the purse gets to make the rules.

One of the justifications for the massive growth of government in the 20th and now 21st century was the need to promote what the government defines as fair and just. But this begs the more fundamental question: What is the legitimate role of government in a free society? It is here that you and I have divergent opinions. I am not by nature a conspiracy theorist, nor am I paranoid. However, I do have more than merely healthy skepticism when it comes to centralized power. Considering what is going on in Washington DC at the moment, I think I am more than justified in that.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

For your edification, my husband came from a solid middle-class family and interrupted his education in order to enlist in the U.S. Army.

Well blow me!

You learn something new every day.

I didn't know the land of freedom and liberty had a class hierarchy.

We all thought your caste system was based on wealth, which you equated with success.

You live and learn.