Bluetit1802
Legend
Blimey, and I thought students were poor.
-
Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »
American healthcare vs U.K. Healthcare
- Thread starter mc9
- Start Date
Blimey, and I thought students were poor.
TomGreen101
Well-Known Member
@Bluetit1802 not here where I live.
BrianTheElder
Well-Known Member
A good question and worth answering.
Unfortunately, a lot of the posts have descended into anti-UK and anti-US rhetoric.
Seems to me that countries all over the world are struggling with the problem of how to provide good healthcare and benefits to their populations when there are rich, poor, healthy and ill across the range. A lot of countries are trying hybrid systems of state run and private, using tax and insurance. What works for one society may not suit another, but we should all watch and learn, not criticise and snipe.
Dark Horse
Well-Known Member
And I know people in the NHS who moan about those who spend a fortune introducing 'improvements' without bothering to measure whether or not they are achieving what they set out to. The right amount of 'bean-counting' can save money but it's probably quite difficult (perhaps impossible in a very big organisation) to get the balance right.
AndyPoulton
Newbie
Actually, the NHS isn't free although it is "Free at the point of delivery" meaning that UK citizens and those eligible to use the service are not presented with a bill.
However, we do pay for it - that's what National Insurance is supposed to cover although some of our general taxation (income tax, VAT, IPT etc) is probably used to.
kittypoker
Well-Known Member
To be fair, the original post asked for opinions on which healthcare system is better, which is unanswerable unless you've lived in both countries for some time and fallen ill in both so can compare. There are probably a few thousand people who can judge reliably from experience, and I'm not one of them.
Last edited:
Bluetit1802
Legend
Totally agree with you, but this has been discussed in full on previous pages of this thread.
lindisfel
Expert
One doesn't necessarily have to personally experience a system before one assesses it fairness. I find it odd if one criticizes a health system they are considered anti american? I don't like bagpipes but I am not anti Scottish. It is a discussion, ease up a bit. Like us Brits you have lot right and a lot wrong with your country. Mind you as I get older I love my country more and more. 
D.
D.
Humma
Well-Known Member
Read this and make your decision..................http://www.theperfectd.com/2014/10/23/type1-diabetes-no-insurance-how-little-can-you-pay/
And that's just basic costs with no extra health problems encountered along the way! I didn't expect it to be that much.
TorqPenderloin
Well-Known Member
That's actually pretty accurate and that's coming from someone who lives here in the US. I guess the only difference is that I wouldn't say that $130/month is a lot of money for something that keeps you alive. Then again, I live in a country where healthcare is considered a privilege rather than an entitlement.
I'm sure the next response I'll get is: "But what about the people who do think $130/month is a lot of money?"
Answer: Again, we have government assistance like Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Social Security, Disability, etc that are designed to help those people who can't afford $130/month.
There are ABSOLUTELY a number of people who get scr**ed by the US healthcare system, but it's usually not the poor and it's a lot smaller group of people than most realize. As I've said before, it's the people who are just wealthy enough to not be considered poor, don't qualify for government assistance, and don't have health insurance through work are the ones that often have it worst.
Many of you probably won't like me saying this, but it's the truth. The fact of the matter is that the US healthcare system subsidizes the rest of the world's healthcare. Honestly, we could make a few very small changes to our healthcare system, and it could easily cover 100% of our citizens. Unfortunately, we'd probably start a world war in the process as most countries wouldn't be very happy with that.
JohnEGreen
Master
Exactly.
TorqPenderloin
Well-Known Member
I honestly find it a bit sad that anyone would consider healthcare as anything but a privilege.
The average medical school student in the US graduates with nearly $200,000 in student loans. Why does that person owe me anything when they owe enough as it is?
Furthermore, why is healthcare an entitlement when some 3rd world countries don't even have access to clean drinking water?
lindisfel
Expert
I can't see the connection the two things are not comparable. Bill Gates is doing his best but in Africa there are too many tribal dictators depriving the non favoured tribes of funds they have purloined. What did disgust me was dogs in south Yorks have diabetes because they are fed treats. It is the same area where I know of an headmaster who has to feed poor children in a morning because they come to school with no breakfast and can't study. D.
Minnie45
Well-Known Member
I guess it depends on the insurance? My cousin lives in the US, her insurance used to cover everything, then she had a $6,000 annual deductible imposed, she decided to self fund her diabetes care (thankfully she is working) but felt it more cost effective to forgo her pump and CGM to self fund her diabetes care. Her insurance is there for emergencies/surgery etc. A friend who also lives in the US has a minimal deductible but in the last 8 months has had her insurance company refuse her insulin, they insisted she had an alternative so to comply she did, only a few months later for the insurance company to refuse to cover that one and to go back on the original. I find it scary that an insurance company can make such important decisions based on a whim. Whilst I do not think our NHS is perfect, far from it, it is reassuring to know that I do not have to worry about my daily supplies. (Hopefully these aren't famous last words)
Dark Horse
Well-Known Member
I don't understand what you mean by that, could you explain, please?
this part of your post is the BIG reveal -- u are talking about a huge swathe of the American population of people that live in a system that benefits employees of larger companies
The people who suffer the most are those who make just enough money to not be considered poor and don't have access to health insurance through their employer. The only options they have are to go through our ACA (Affordable Care Act) exchange and buy a health insurance plan that often can cost $500/month. That's nearly impossible to do for someone who takes home $2000/month and has children to feed (and insure).
TorqPenderloin
Well-Known Member
Most governments have the ability to regulate drug prices in their countries to a far greater extent than here in the US. If that were to change (and drug prices in the US decreased), you would almost certainly see a ripple effect in higher drug prices across the world as drug companies would then need to recoup the lost revenue. The other possibility is that they would simply cut their R&D budget and decrease innovation.
Honestly, I'm doing my best to be objective about this discussion, and I'm not trying to hide anything. What I'm trying to do is explain that most of the articles and anecdotes being posted in this thread are rare situations and they don't accurately depict the "Normal" healthcare issues people face in the US.
What is a much more common situation is the single mom with three kids who makes $35,000 a year, doesn't have health insurance from her job, but also "Makes too much money" to qualify for most government assistance programs. If she's lucky, she might be able to find a job that pays $30,000 AND has health insurance, but that puts her in a very difficult situation: is the $5000 paycut worth the health insurance coverage?
In response to your comments about living in a system that benefits employees of larger companies: There is absolutely truth in what you're saying, but that's part of what makes privatized (and government-sponsored) healthcare successful: larger insurance pools potentially increase the amount of money coming into the system (insurance premiums) and decrease the amount of money leaving the system (higher ratio of healthy-to-unhealthy people).
MikeTurin
Well-Known Member
This is due to the "scam" (maybe the term is not correct - i'll call the game of three cards in Italian but I don't remenber the idiomatic expression in English ) of the student's loan mechanism in the US that permits to the universities to overcharge the tuition rates and getting a government funding hidden in the backing of the loan. I suppose that directly funding the universities for the most brilliant/most poor students will cost less to the government than the student loan mechanism.
Here in Italy students loans are unknown, one could get a loan from a bank but is backed only by the bank and must be backed by a parents sureyship.
