Nationalised health care

Hi, over the years I've seen a lot of threads regarding health care in (mostly) the US and UK.

Pretty much every thread about Obama care devolves into a frenzy of posts about percieved failings of one system or the other.

I thought I'd take a moment to relate some of my own experiences living in the UK and hope that some of you feel like relating your own experiences of using healthcare wherever you live.

I was born in '68 in an NHS hospital, I grew up with the occasional visits to the GP, dentist and Hospital over the years. A broken arm aged 7, a few ear infections, tonsilitis, the usual childhood maladies, the odd rugby injury requiring stitches etc and the occasional filling of a tooth cavity.
I nevver gave it any thought, my prescriptions were paid for by the state, as were all treatments and consultations. My mum never had to consider whether she could afford to take me in.

As an adult, I once crashed my 750 Honda on a country road and was picked up by an ambulance and taken to the nearest hospital where I was x rayed, cleaned up and sent packing once it was discovered I was ok apart from some gravel rash that was treated 3 times a week at my local GP surgery (A GP is a family doctor).

Another crash followed a few years later, I broke my femur and had 6 months worth of treatment before I was discharged as cured.
All 3 of my kids were born in a well equipped maternity ward, the youngest was born without a pulse and they revived her there and then.
Later on she had to be admitted for pneumonia, which she got over eventually.

My middle son had a non cancerous growth removed from his finger, completely successfully.

Last year I thought I was having a heart attack, so I fetched up at the A and E department late on a Sunday night (I was working at the time) It turned out I wasn't having a heart attack but was suffering from a congenital condition known as Wolff-Parkinson-White which makes your heart race at up to 200 bpm.

Yesterday I was taken in to Bristol Royal for a radio ablation procedure to burn out the defective part of the heart and stop this happening in the future.
I was in and out in 10 hours.

I read online that it can cost upwards of 70k in the US for this procedure alone. I'd never have afforded that.

I've worked and paid tax all my life, yet received health care of top notch quality, whenever I have needed it.
I can't understand why anyone would not want to have the same availabilty.

Anyway, that's my experience of the NHS.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Thirty years ago, I had health insurance provided through my employer.
I had no out of pocket expenses and excellent health care.
Today, I have health insurance partially provided by my employer. I have copays for everything... office visits, tests... everything. I also have a large deductible that I never had up until a few years ago.
I am in the US.

a reply to: SprocketUK
The NHS has a lot of faults but in concept and most of the time in execution it is absolutely fantastic.
I owe the life of at least one of my kids to the outstanding care they provided and in my opinion the creation of the NHS is the finest act ever of any UK government.

The Idea of a National HealthCare system is wonderful. You get sick, you go to the Dr and get what you need. Simple. The reality of it is a whole different story. Red tape, waiting periods months long fora CT scan, MRI etc, the scams, over charging, "Oh, we cover this but not that.... we don't think you need that".

www.latimes.com...

Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."

Supporters of universal coverage fear that people without health insurance will be denied the healthcare they need. Of course, all Americans already have access to at least emergency care. Hospitals are legally obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and although physicians do not face the same legal requirements, we do not hear of many who are willing to deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance

a reply to: DAVID64

That wasn't your personal experience mate. So it doesn't count.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Thanks for sharing,

I've worked and paid tax all my life, yet received health care of top notch quality, whenever I have needed it.
I can't understand why anyone would not want to have the same availabilty.

Because many feel that socialized healthcare is unconstitutional. They believe government has no say in the matter and that, constitutionally, it outta be left up to the free markets and the states. Mind you though, there is medicare that caters to the elderly (and a very popular government program that the vast majority would not dare part with) but many core conservatives and libertarians believe that should be taken away completely as well. So no matter how much you try and convince many here that public healthcare is good, in their eyes, it's not something government should get involved with (which i disagree with, but just putting it in perspective of socialized healthcare opponents).

I read online that it can cost upwards of 70k in the US for this procedure alone. I'd never have afforded that.

It is very expensive. Healthcare costs are out of control, they've been rising dramatically for decades now. Many argue that Obama's healthcare law has made it worst, but the facts remain, healthcare costs have been out of control for a long time. Still many feel it's a better system as there's less waiting time, better service, quality. of course that's besides the point as it's useless to somebody who can't afford the costs to access it. You get what you pay for and many can't afford these costs, and there's nothing as an alternative, no safety net. It's ridiculous I agree..... but it will be some time before something like a public option is introduced..... In the mean time many will continue to keep their heads in the sand.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Hi, over the years I've seen a lot of threads regarding health care in (mostly) the US and UK.

Pretty much every thread about Obama care devolves into a frenzy of posts about percieved failings of one system or the other.

I thought I'd take a moment to relate some of my own experiences living in the UK and hope that some of you feel like relating your own experiences of using healthcare wherever you live.

I was born in '68 in an NHS hospital, I grew up with the occasional visits to the GP, dentist and Hospital over the years. A broken arm aged 7, a few ear infections, tonsilitis, the usual childhood maladies, the odd rugby injury requiring stitches etc and the occasional filling of a tooth cavity.
I nevver gave it any thought, my prescriptions were paid for by the state, as were all treatments and consultations. My mum never had to consider whether she could afford to take me in.

As an adult, I once crashed my 750 Honda on a country road and was picked up by an ambulance and taken to the nearest hospital where I was x rayed, cleaned up and sent packing once it was discovered I was ok apart from some gravel rash that was treated 3 times a week at my local GP surgery (A GP is a family doctor).

Another crash followed a few years later, I broke my femur and had 6 months worth of treatment before I was discharged as cured.
All 3 of my kids were born in a well equipped maternity ward, the youngest was born without a pulse and they revived her there and then.
Later on she had to be admitted for pneumonia, which she got over eventually.

My middle son had a non cancerous growth removed from his finger, completely successfully.

Last year I thought I was having a heart attack, so I fetched up at the A and E department late on a Sunday night (I was working at the time) It turned out I wasn't having a heart attack but was suffering from a congenital condition known as Wolff-Parkinson-White which makes your heart race at up to 200 bpm.

Yesterday I was taken in to Bristol Royal for a radio ablation procedure to burn out the defective part of the heart and stop this happening in the future.
I was in and out in 10 hours.

I read online that it can cost upwards of 70k in the US for this procedure alone. I'd never have afforded that.

I've worked and paid tax all my life, yet received health care of top notch quality, whenever I have needed it.
I can't understand why anyone would not want to have the same availabilty.

Anyway, that's my experience of the NHS.

But you can afford it that's the point. You spent your entire life paying an extra 6-14% of extra taxes per year that we don't have. Take a minute and add up all of those taxes throughout your entire life and see if it was really worth it. Unlike the UK we don't have enough people paying taxes to make it work.

a reply to: DAVID64
There is very little that isn't covered by the NHS and usually only when there is little evidence of success. Where there are waiting lists people can still opt to go private (usually I believe at lower cost than in the U.S.) .
The UK (as with most countries with universal care) consistently record better outcomes for less cost that the US.

a reply to: SprocketUK

I'm from the USA, I rescued my wife from the UK, I say rescued for the following personal experience:

As a young lady she was diagnosed with Juvenal arthritis, at the time they knew that is often a temporary affliction than you "grow out of" so instead of providing her with an expensive treatment they already knew of, they provided her with temporary "bandaid" type treatments. After a few years they could see she wasn't growing out of it but due to rules she wasn't allowed the expensive treatment yet because she hadn't failed three other similar treatments yet. Unfortunate by the time she failed those treatments to be "allowed" to take the expensive treatment, her health had deteriorated so badly she now needed a hip replacement. She had to wait months in agony and pain before the hip replacement was approved and performed.

You're right in basic care, it's great. But your story isn't everyone's story. My wife's experience when she married me and was put on my healthcare in America:

During her first visit, the doctor was appalled she wasn't already taking the expensive treatment, and prescribed it to her immediately. We know go for long hikes with the dog every summer, and her mother cries seeing how able she is when in the UK she could barely walk down the block.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Yeah. Damn the facts, let's have feel good story time.

a reply to: DAVID64

The point is many people simply can't afford the high costs of healthcare here, so, while one can argue a public system will be slower, and of lesser quality compared to private healthcare, at least these individuals unable to afford it will have something fall back on. Right now it's nothing.

Also, I love it how public healthcare opponents continue to argue that people will be treated in emergencies or hospitals will continue to provide care regardless of ability to pay. Yet they always leave out this glaring fact.... that once those individuals are treated and released, they get sent a bill regardless and they end up broke, or in debt for the rest of their lives. Why is this fact always ignored?

Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.

www.cnbc.com...

It's a problem.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

That constitution you have is a complicated thing, aint it? I hadn't looked at it in those terms before. I take a slightly different view but can see how that could be the interpretation. I guess it comes down to what you regard as the business of government in the end.

Av, doubtful, mate. There's always something you have to spend your "spare" cash on and without the NHS I'd have had to take out insurance for me and my family which (last I looked) was £1200 a month which is more than my mortgage.
I'd much rather pay the 9% NI

a reply to: avgguy
The US is a richer country both in absolute terms and per capita, how cant you afford it?
The UK also spends less on healthcare than the US but gets better outcomes.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The U.K. has a ridiculously high hospital mortality rate when compared to the US.

"Almost 10 years ago, in 2004, there were 22.5% more deaths in English NHS hospitals than would have been expected, giving England the highest hospital death rate of the seven countries examined.
HSMRs in the NHS were 58% higher than the best country, the US.
Since 2004 things have improved, but in 2012 a patient in the average NHS hospital was still 45% more likely to die in hospital than if they had been admitted to a US hospital.
People over the age of 65 fare worse. Elderly people are five times more likely to die of pneumonia in hospital in England and twice as likely to die from a blood infection (septicaemia) than if they were admitted to a hospital in the US."

Professor Jarman notes in his report that compared with several of the other countries examined, England has:
poorer cancer survival
longer waiting lists
lower patient input, with only a small proportion of hospital complaints formally investigated
lower GP out-of-hours on-call service
lower rates of services, including lower use of diagnostic procedures such as MRI, heart surgery, and lower immunisation rates
a lower number of doctors per bed and per 1,000 population
a lower number of acute beds per 1,000 population


Just because it may be cheaper doesn't mean that it's always better.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: avgguy
The US is a richer country both in absolute terms and per capita, how cant you afford it?
The UK also spends less on healthcare than the US but gets better outcomes.

The U.K. does not have better outcomes, check my post above.

a reply to: DAVID64

Yeah. Damn the facts, let's have feel good story time.

Yea what's the problem? People are losing their houses, their livelyhoods due to skyrocketing healthcare costs, so who cares right? The US spends more than any other developed country in the United States, and you don't seem to think this is something to be concerned about?

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Thanks for sharing mate and I'm glad to hear things are looking up.

I guess this is a good example of where the NHS fails, though I wonder at the people who put these "rules" in place and whether they think them through.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: SprocketUK

Yeah. Damn the facts, let's have feel good story time.

Or damn the requested criteria, lets just vent, eh?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The point is many people simply can't afford the high costs of healthcare here, so, while one can argue a public system will be slower, and of lesser quality compared to private healthcare, at least these individuals unable to afford it will have something fall back on. Right now it's nothing. 

I wish I knew how my estranged wife does it then.
She has no job. Lives on welfare and food stamps and has had a lot of medical procedures performed (she managed to have two breast augmentation surgeries performed since I threw her out) including treatment for heart issues and narcolepsy. She doesn't receive money from me, she has three children of which she doesn't have custody and she pays no child support.

a reply to: butcherguy
Bloody hell, 2 breast augmentations? You waiting for the third before taking her back?