" A daughter's tribute to the NHS: 'By now I am convinced it is the nearest we get to a benevolent deity. It's free care for American immigrants, for absent parents, for the only father I will ever have The scandalous neglect of patients at hospitals in Mid Staffordshire has knocked the nations confidence in the NHS. But for Sarah CR Bee, whose American father spent his last days in a London intensive care unit, the system seemed like a miracle... " http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...the-only-father-i-will-ever-have-8507647.html
Thank you for posting that Colonel. Now someone without any sense of decency will come along to crap on it.
The only thing I do not like about socialized medicine is the price fixing. It is supply and demand which sets market prices and prevents shortages. When you have a miniaturized command economy, with the government setting salaries and prices, and then even placing limits on them on top of that, there often tends to be shortages. And then the government just brings in cheap foreign labor, which brings on all sorts of problems of its own. Sure, anyone has the option of finding a private doctor, but NHS will not cover it, and likely individuals cannot afford to buy their own health treatment because all the taxes they have to pay for the NHS to be funded. If you are being taxed to fund a service meant to be provided to you, I think you should have a few rights...
Would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of UHC between countries like U.K. Australia and Canada. Here in Canada there is mush left to be desired... insanely long wait times to see specialists... healthcare professional shortage... ridiculous charges just to have a doctor fill out paperwork... medical marijuana program rife with corruption, excessive charges, and infiltration by organized crime. There are good points to UHC... but based upon the Canadian model there are some serious limitations and problems.
IMO price fixing leads to many complications in the Canadian version of UHC. In America my docs always spent time with me, never really seemed rushed... here in Canada a doctor's office waiting room feels like an assembly line... in and out as fast as they can move you. Canadian docs make a fraction of many American docs so I guess they just see as many people as they can at the government controlled flat rate. Also, if anyone come to visit Canada be sure to have travel insurance!!! I had an ER visit last year that led to three different bills. All were at a flat rate of $600. When I was able to show that I had applied for Permanent Residence all the bills were massively lowered... one down to $30.
That's another thing I do not like about socialized healthcare. Once the government takes over and starts making decisions for you, all the little healthcare problems become politicized. I would much rather prefer to argue about whether or not people can afford healthcare than be drawn into the details about long wait times or poor quality of care. At least with the private system, individuals are responsible for choosing their own care provider they think will do a good job. There's enough divisive things to argue about in politics without having to turn medical care into yet another source of wedge issues. Leave the government out of the decision making process and there will be nothing to argue about. (or at least the argument will only be about whether or not the government should be involved )
Okay would you give up health care for what we have in the United States pre-ACA? Yes or no. I have many friends abroad they might have issues with their national system but its telling none Dutch, French, British or even Indian (middle class India society) wants what we have. None. Oddly even India and their native health services have more to offer than here and that is sad. If our system was so good how come no one wanted to copy the thing we copied other peoples good ideas like IKE when he saw the German highway system and wanted one here.. [The tourist hospitals in India that are for profit are also so much better but out of the price range of many Indians unless they do specialty care for someone as charity.]
I think you read way too much into what I was saying. Perhaps you see black and white... I see all the shades of grey as well. There is no perfect system, and the only experience I have is with the USA and Canada. I know people here in Canada who have traveled to the USA for surgeries because of the insanely long wait periods here. Seems cruel to make people suffer for up to 1 1/2 years while waiting in a queue for treatment. Many people also face financial ruin because of the inability to work while waiting for a desperately needed surgery. Others get surgeries done then go without meds because of gaps in the coverage system. I bet if I were to live in India, Holland, France, or the U.K. I would find gaping flaws in their system. To me its a balancing act... and what is best for one country may not work as well in another for many reasons. One thing I can tell you, America is spoiled by low taxes... if we get UHC like much of the rest of the World... Americans need to get ready for massive tax increases... especially if doctors are to continue to be paid at their current level. I think all should be covered... I just think its is not as simple as some make it out to be. I have always had nothing but the best healthcare in America... even when I was not covered. How? Public and private safety nets... I had a sinus surgery and paid nothing when I had no insurance... follow up care and meds included. But help for those lacking insurance varies wildly from area to area. While I was in America it was a popular opinion that Canada was the land of milk and honey when it came to healthcare... but sadly the reality of it does not measure up to the perception. Both America and Canada have major strengths as well as serious limitations in their healthcare system.
I can only speak from experience in Australia. My doctors and I make decisions about my health care. The decisions have been based (and trust me in the last couple of years I've really learned about health care as a patient) on clinical grounds, nothing else. The discussion in Australia is broadly about funding, no surprise there I would think. Unlike the UK funding is from the federal government and administered by the states and territories. That's where the ugly politics come in. States and territories with conservative governments (six of the nine) are playing politics with funding and not doing too well on healthcare delivery. The solution is to abolish all state and territory goverenments but that won't happen. But here all a patient and his or her relatives have to worry about are the affliction, not the bills. That's a huge plus. Now if only we could get rid of state and territory governments and fund the system nationally I think we'd avoid a lot of the politicking.
I think some Canadian provinces are opposed or have outlawed private treatment. If so then that's a bit silly, possibly bureaucratic thinking or even ideology gone stupid. In Australia we have a mix of public and private. Take my case as an example. I have private health insurance that covers hospital and other bits and pieces. The only broad advantages I have are that for elective surgery I can ask my treating specialist to see me asap and at a private hospital. I also get free tv and all of that stuff. Yes I am better off with it because for elective surgery I don't have to wait. But I am not forced to go into the public system by the bureaucracy. The benefit to the public system is that I am not another person waiting in the queue for surgery. I would say that's reasonable commonsense to have a dual system. When it comes to emergency treatment (which I have experienced) then the public system looked after me and they looked after me exceedingly well. In one case I was examined, stabilised, treated and then had serious surgery. I elected to have that surgery in the private system after my initial stay in a public hospital. The surgeon, rated the number one in his field in town, works in both private and public systems, as many specialists do here. In another case I was admitted, treated and stayed in the public system and even scored myself a nice little room all to myself which was nice (had to pay for the tv though). You know this is one of those things - and trust me as you get older it becomes very important - that are much, much too important to leave to politicians and bureaucrats to fight over or for ideological argument. I like our system. It has its faults because it's run by humans, not angels (the latter work in hospitals and are called "nurses"), but all in all I think it's pretty damn good. Yes it could be better funded and it should be but that's down to politicians and bureaucrats, not medical professionals of any stripe.
Sure, if you throw enough money at the problem, you are more likely to get a better system. The question is whether it is the most cost effective solution. If you would not pay for luxury medical care with your own money, why would you want the government to do the same thing with your tax money? Seems like typical Labour/"progressive" thinking, that you think the problems will go away if you transfer power from the local governments to higher up. The good thing about local governments administering these laws is that local politicians can be more responsible to the people, and adjust their policies to suit the particular needs of individual regions, instead of a "one size fits all policy" that is often not the most efficient. Do not get me wrong, I am all for decent wages for doctors and nurses under any government-run health system. It's just shameful when the politicians have to bring in foreign doctors because they are not willing to pay enough to attract doctors from their own country. This so often seems to happen under socialized healthcare systems (although private healthcare is not completely guiltless either in this regard).
Cost-effective? I suppose to be able to work that out you have to look at what you’re trying to achieve. The indicators for a superior health care system are beyond me to nominate, I’m no expert, just a grateful consumer. But I would think that those indicators would broadly encompass average lifespan, the incidence of preventable diseases, waiting times for treatment and probably a whole lot of others beyond my limited knowledge. Oh and no-one going bankrupt because of medical bills and no-one missing out on treatment because they can’t afford it, those are two biggies for me. I’m not sure what you mean by “luxury health care”. My experience has been that the actual health care I received was not much different in either the public or the private system. I did note - and this is from conversations with nurses - that there seemed to be a higher ratio of nurses to patients in the public than the private systems. But that has to be tempered with the fact that this is purely anecdotal, just my experience. In the private system I did note a lot of nurses were casual on-call from agencies and changed a bit but in the public system it seemed the nurses were constant in that I knew who would be working which shifts. The add-ons are nice. Free tv, nice single room with en-suite, all of that stuff, but the important bit is the care and that didn’t change from system to system. No, I want our government to ensure that good health care is available for anyone who needs it. If I want the bits and pieces then I’ll pay for them, as I should. Having said that I was happy to see the food in the public system has improved, but it’s still a way behind the private system. But hey at least I didn’t have to bring a packed lunch! Good point about localisation of government and I agree with you. My problem here, specifically here in Australia, is that we have too much of it, government I mean. No, I’m not a Norquist small-government type. But take my state for example. Population is (2009) 1.7 million people approximately (I’ve rounded up from the 2009 figures). That’s not even a reasonable size city in North America. We are governed by a Parliament of two Houses (no way would I want a unicameral parliament though) and 69 Members in both Houses. What???? And then there’s the departments, which are all necessary of course. Another problem is that the state is big and empty and topgraphically very diverse. Because it is a central state and borders every other state except Tasmania the border regions sometimes share more in common culturally and economically with other states than they do with this state (better name it, South Australia). Australia needs one national government and a number of regional governments that are part of national government and not little independent countries, which technically in Australia they still are. But I digress. Doctors from overseas. Bit in two minds about that. The medical profession in Australia has a very powerful union and it makes sure that locals are not gazumped by imports. Having said that I don’t have a problem with it. The last specialist to treat me is originally from Greece and studied all over the world in his specialisation and is seen as one of the top practitioners in Australia in his field. Me, I don’t care if a doc is from Timbuktu as long as he or she knows their stuff. I worry more about the shafting our young docs get in the stupidly long shifts they are forced to work, the docs union needs to sort that out.
I support decent care, I just want my tax money to be spent efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. I do not want incentives to be created for patients to get expensive non-cost effective medical services that are not worth the cost. I also do not believe in limiting how much doctors can charge patients when there is a shortage in a particular specialty. If the government is only willing to pay so much of the cost, then fine. But I do not want the government refusing to pay any of the cost just because the doctor demands additional money from the patient to cover what the government does not. If the government is taking my tax money, what right do they have to tell me as a patient that I cannot pay my doctor more?
Yes it is, with Federal oversight at some level. I am in British Columbia. Thanks for the correction, when speaking on Canadian UHC I do need to refer to BC specifically.
well that surprising to hear I live here and I don't know of any provinces where private treatment is outlawed.... the tv wasn't free, you paid for it ...all surgeries private or public are done on the hospitals and the MDs schedule not yours, you are always in a queue...so many private care proponents claim their MDs and Hospitals are on standby just for them with instantaneous attention which unless it's an ER situation is absolute BS...
I could no problem digging up articles of US wait times that stretch into years...there are healthcare professional shortages in the US as well....those ridiculous charges in the US are hidden in the insurance fees which are on average 30% than in Canada... how is Canadians having an average lifespan 3yrs longer than Americans is a problem?
I lived in the USA for 46 years and never had long wait times. Here in British Columbia it is the norm. In the USA it would be generally up to 5 business days for me to see a specialist... sometimes a couple weeks... but here in BC it is common to wait a year or more. I never said it was a bad thing. British Columbia has some major advantages over Idaho in healthcare, but it also has some major weaknesses. If you choose to only look at the good while ignoring the bad... then more power to ya! I find wisdom in examining both sides.
american MDs spend more time because you pay higher insurance, time with my MD is never rushed...waiting rooms are waiting rooms, you wait... wages? Specialty US Average Salary Canada Average Salary (n/1.212) Family Medicine $164,952 -canada $167,064 Int. Medicine $170,889/ $169,450 (hospitalist) -canada $248,721 Ob/Gyn $253,160 -canada $261,412 Gen. Surgery $278,433 -canada $247,375 Anesthesia $309,019 -canada $205,441 Urology $317,778 -canada $279,982 no vast differences and canadian MDs have lower malpractice insurance costs and much, much, lower administration costs...that administration costs and malpractice fees that are passed on to you pay in insurance fees in the US...if there was a huge wage discrepancy there would be a flood of canadian md's heading south but there isn't...a MD friend of mine( a graduate of John Hopkins) pulls in a 7 figure salary... anyone traveling anywhere should have travel insurance particularly anyone going to the US...what the hell, do you think you can go anywhere in the world and expect free medical treatment?...where do you come with these biased notions? I've met enough americans who live here and have used our medical system that have nothing but praise for it... going into a hospital and walking away with a bill for $30 what do have to complain about would you feel better paying 30%-50% more for insurance in the US...
Idaho is hillbilly land, I can go to a rural community here and get much quicker service than I do in the city...wait time even in the US comes down to where you live and how much money you have...private healthcare patients move to the head of the line, public healthcare patients wait and wait and wait...if I want to pay cash I can sign up for private care here as well, that doesn't mean we suddenly have more MDs I just have more money that gets me to the front of line...if you're objective there are plenty of articles about US wait times for specialist care...
I had Medicare and Medicaid and was poor... still had great medical care. You seem to have some misconceptions about the American system. Although I do agree that healthcare quality does vary from area to area. And the thought that money moves you to the front of the line is just silly. In the early 90's I had a surgery with no insurance, received the best medical care, follow up care, and meds... for free. Is there abuse in the medical system... yes. Show me a medical system devoid of fraud and corruption to one degree or another.
some myths about UHC in canada, it takes weeks to see a MD...I can see an MD in about an hour at any walk-in clinic, my wife prefers a personal family physician which takes a week, one or two days if she's sick,(I prefer walk-in clinics).... if it's an immediate issue then you don't go to see your family physician you go to a walk-in clinic or the ER... specialists... specialists don't see people who self-diagnose, a general/family physician makes the call on what specialist needs to be seen, any wait time is an illusion the specialist has already seen the patients symptoms as described by the general physician and if it's desperately urgent the patient is moved to the head of the line, otherwise the specialist has already made a preliminary diagnosis based on the symptoms as written by the general physician well before you've seen them ...not long ago my brother was very ill and went to see an MD at a walk-in clinic, the MD immediately sent his diagnosis to an Oncologist as urgent, the Oncologist agreed with the MD's preliminary diagnosis and saw my bro 2 days later, the next day he had surgery for advanced colon cancer, total elapsed time, 4 days... I went to an ER very recently with sudden memory loss, with-in minutes of walking in I was fast tracked past dozens in the waiting room and into a bed hooked up to assortment of equipment with diagnosis of a suspected stroke, the resident Neurosurgeon on call did the initial consult and said it wasn't a stroke and I was given a follow up appointment with a Neurologist only 5 days later to look for other causes...total out of pocket cost, 0$ emergency cases are treated immediately, everything else is treated on a first come first served order, anyone with a surplus of cash they want to throw away and wanting immediate gratification for non life threatening ailments has the option of private clinics.... here's a little realized fact about US MD specialists, there are two levels, Board Eligible and Board Certified, someone who is Board Eligible has never passed the exams for their specialty, so that Board Eligible Oncologist specialist that they're seeing for their cancer would not even be qualified to practice in Canada...
you didn't get anything for free, your insurance was 30-50% higher than mine... the following links say I'm correct in regards to private and public wait times in the US... http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ccess-and-outcomes-than-the-privately-insured http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/health/policy/16care.html?_r=0 and money absolutely does move you to the front...that's just naive to think it doesn't, it even happens here.... http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/allegatio...are-treatment-for-university-donors-1.1120482
