Why can't America adopt a NHS type system ??

a reply to: LondonMan

Because in this country (USA), people care more about money than the welfare of their fellow citizens

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: LondonMan

Because in this country (USA), people care more about money than the welfare of their fellow citizens

You mean American people would dare to put their own health and well being ahead of that of strangers? The HUMANITY!!!!

The worst part is, with your statement you presuppose the financial condition of anyone who disagrees. Essentially thinking people liars without even hearing any details.

You may not have noticed....but America doesn't really have a middle class. We are all working poor, struggling just to get by week to week. You can bet your ass that I love money more than my neighbor, at least insofar as I enjoy eating and having electricity. And would rather pay my own medical bills that I already cannot afford.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There is also the assumption that we are already not giving what we can where we can to help others. As if allowing the government to take ever more of what we earn to distribute as it sees fit is the *only* way to help someone who needs help.

It's very binary thinking and usually a means of attempting to shame people into bending to one's will or shaming them into giving in rather than a serious argument.

The NHS is collapsing, with costs spiralling out of control. Those shouting about it as a great thing to adopt for the US are the same people who want EVERYTHING covered as a mandate. Try getting access to things like mental health services on the NHS. It's a shambles and even with shocking levels of service for some issues, it's still going bust.


A US version of the NHS would be a disaster - unless those that keep pretending it's great would accept less health issues actually covered OR horrible levels of service and eventual implosion.

The UK is already has two-tier health system because of the problems with the NHS. The have's rely on private healthcare and the private companies contracted by the NHS are pulling services in favour of the private market. The have-nots rely on second tier service provided by the NHS, with dwindling resources.

a reply to: UKTruth

Our system is on the same boat, but it costs 2X as much.

a reply to: ketsuko

That is why i have no issue stating what everyone already knows to be true with themselves: I do not care about anyone else but me and those I care about within my home (you know...the ones im attached to). After those within my perimeter are all taken care of, then ill worry about everyone else.

Nothing is more insidious than someone who thinks they know your finances better than you, despite not knowing you at all. Its the kind of thing that will cause blood to spill in the end if left unchecked.

a reply to: seasonal

Our system is not going bust, it's just expensive.
However we DON'T have excessive wait times for urgent care like the NHS or Canada's system. The waits for simple MRI's is ridiculous and life threatening in many cases. Same with routine diagnostic bloodwork.

The staff of both systems are so understaffed people are being misdiagnosed for simple things like Sepsis, and dying as a result.

NONE of the healthcare options of any of our three countries is fantastic. Unless you've got buckets of disposable cash laying around?

a reply to: Caver78

I hear these horror stories, but when I do a little research I have a hard time finding massive widespread problems.

Which country has the world's best healthcare system?
www.theguardian.com...
World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems
www.who.int...

Life expectancy is a good way to see how things are going, but there are a lot of things to consider with this number.



,

The massive military spending did absolutely NOTHING to protect us on 9/11. Cut military spending to fund healthcare security.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: UKTruth

Our system is on the same boat, but it costs 2X as much.

Which is the key point many seem to ignore. The NHS is far from perfect but it is run on smaller budget compared to most comparable countries health spending.

Some posters like point out individual areas where the US does well as evidence the the US system works better. Given the disparity in healthcare spending the US should be ahead in every single metric, not just a few cherry picked examples.

a reply to: Caver78

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: seasonal

Our system is not going bust, it's just expensive.
However we DON'T have excessive wait times for urgent care like the NHS or Canada's system. The waits for simple MRI's is ridiculous and life threatening in many cases. Same with routine diagnostic bloodwork.

The staff of both systems are so understaffed people are being misdiagnosed for simple things like Sepsis, and dying as a result.

NONE of the healthcare options of any of our three countries is fantastic. Unless you've got buckets of disposable cash laying around?

Many people experience wait times in the US as well. They have to wait till they can afford treatment.

If the NHS was funded even a little closer to US levels there would be no wait times and universal cover.

Which points to the real issue. Medical costs, not the insurance model.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The planned expenditure for the NHS in 2018 is £126bn ($166bn), a per capita cost north of £2000 ($2640) per year.
www.nhsconfed.org...
second source to validate: www.kingsfund.org.uk...

in 2018 Obamacare is forecast to cost $160bn, or about $500 per capita.
obamacarefacts.com...

So to get the same poor service as the UK, the US would need to find another $640bn per year - which could come from medicaid/medicare...

Given that it COSTS $2640 per capita to provide the NHS service... the US taxpayers would need to pay about the same for a like for like model, or about $845bn a year in taxes.

I am not sure of the total spend Obamacare/Medicaid/Medicare...
Found this though
www.pnhp.org...

..which suggests about $2trillion a year govt funder healthcare costs - or $5,960 per capita.

So if the UK had the same levels of spend, the tax burden would go up by about £150bn a year. With 30m tax payers in the UK, that would be £5000 a year each, a hike of about 20-25% in the tax rate! It would be great for the NHS and service levels, but the country would collapse!

It just highlights that dramatically funding the NHS to provide great service is impossible. Socialised health = overall poor service. Good in some areas, but a model that simply can't cover all bases effectively.

I guess, given the US already spend twice as much (although they can't really pay for it), they could adopt a UK style system with more funding, but they'd need to tackle the real issue IMO, which is health care COSTS, not insurance.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

The planned expenditure for the NHS in 2018 is £126bn ($166bn), a per capita cost north of £2000 ($2640) per year.
www.nhsconfed.org...
second source to validate: www.kingsfund.org.uk...

in 2018 Obamacare is forecast to cost $160bn, or about $500 per capita.
obamacarefacts.com...

So to get the same poor service as the UK, the US would need to find another $640bn per year - from medicaid/medicare?

Just had a quick look at the numbers from the sites linked...correct?

Given that it COSTS $2640 per capita to provide the NHS service... the US taxpayers would need to pay about the same for a like for like model, or about $845bn a year in taxes. That would be for a service which is LESS effective than the one already in place.

I am not sure of the total spend Obamacare/Medicaid/Medicare...
Found this though
www.pnhp.org...

..which suggests about $2trillion a year govt funder healthcare costs - or $5,960 per capita.

So if the UK had the same levels of spend, the tax burden would go up by about £150bn a year. With 30m tax payers in the UK, that would be £5000 a year each, a hike of about 20-25% in the tax rate! It would be great for the NHS and service levels, but the country would collapse!

You can't compare government spending in a universal healthcare system with just the government spending in predominantly private healthcare system.

Yes government spending on healthcare would have to increase in order to provide universal healthcare but ,and this point seems to elude some people, the amount that would be spent on private health care would dramatically decrease.

The UK spends about 8.5% of GDP on healthcare, the average for comparable countries is around 10%. The US spends about 18%.

Despite this the US is consistently ranked behind other comparable countries for overall healthcare.

a reply to: LondonMan

Because anything that even has the slightest hint of 'socialism' is strictly verboten in America regardless of its potential benefits.
In addition, not enough people would make money out of it.

Unfortunately the obsession with making money out of everything is becoming increasingly engrained here in the UK.

Our NHS system was once the envy of the world, it still should be.
The process of the privatisation of the NHS through the back door is continuing - Blair, Cameron and May have actively encouraged this.

Of course the NHS has never been perfect and there are many areas where significant improvements could and should be made, but the privatisation of the NHS can only be detrimental to the vast majority of British people in order to maximise profits for the elite few.

a reply to: UKTruth

Part of the problem with the idea of medical costs is that health care at its core is a human given service. It is not primarily based on goods.

It takes skilled practitioners who go to very expensive school and work long hard hours for years to learn their skills, and they do expect to be paid commensurate with the level of skill and effort they had to put in. Not only that, but very skilled practitioners are a rarity because of the level of expertise and training we (on all sides of the pond) have come to expect in our doctors.

I know I've read that in the UK, there is a doctor problem because the pay of the NHS does not tend to lure in the locals, so you import a lot of your medical talent from countries where the schooling costs less and the UK's pay and standard of living looks like big money compared to the local pay and standard of living.

In short, the government pay does not meet the expectations of many of the local kids who might otherwise have considered medicine as a career because it does not meet their perceived needs for the amount of schooling and effort they would have to expend to become trained. The private sector offers more, simply put.

We would have the same drain if we switched systems.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes government spending on healthcare would have to increase in order to provide universal healthcare but ,and this point seems to elude some people, the amount that would be spent on private health care would dramatically decrease.

So the whole point then is shift money around, taking away freedom of choice for those that want to spend on private care, so that the govt can choose how to spend it instead. Basically, reduce the level of service for the people who currently have freedoms with private health and raise it (hopefully, but in practice not really) for those who don't... all managed in one of the least efficient places you can get - government.

Sounds a like a bad idea for the US.

Here in the UK, I'd much prefer to make my own choices. Of course, I pay my share for the NHS anyway, but the service is so terrible that I also pay for private health. Indeed private health is usually seen as a big benefit in remuneration packages for employees, mainly to avoid the NHS.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes government spending on healthcare would have to increase in order to provide universal healthcare but ,and this point seems to elude some people, the amount that would be spent on private health care would dramatically decrease.

So the whole point then is shift money around, taking away freedom of choice for those that want to spend on private care, so that the govt can choose how to spend it instead. Basically, reduce the level of service for the people who currently have freedoms with private health and raise it (hopefully, but in practice not really) for those who don't... all managed in one of the least efficient places you can get - government.

Sounds a like a bad idea for the US.

Here in the UK, I'd much prefer to make my own choices. Of course, I pay my share for the NHS anyway, but the service is so terrible that I also pay for private health. Indeed private health is usually seen as a big benefit in remuneration packages for employees, mainly to avoid the NHS.

All government spending is shifting money around. However it is far more efficient and effective to pay for some things collectively. Roads, defence, street lighting, policing etc.

The US system is far more expensive than any comparable system yet produces results that are worse across most metrics. Paying collectively for health care doesn't reduce the quality, it improves it by reducing bueracracy, providing economies of scale and allowing better primary and preventive medicine.

As you point out people in the UK are free to supplement the cover from the NHS with private healthcare, either directly or through insurance. The cost of doing so is a fraction of what health insurance costs in the US because we have the NHS.

In terms of value for money the NHS is one of the best systems in the world. If it was properly funded it would be the best system outright.

Gangs, wars, mad science, black projects, and blaming everyone communist.