American healthcare vs U.K. Healthcare

The New York Times? Ah yes, a fount of independent information - just like the Daily Mail is here

The thing is Tom, and you can argue this until the cows come home, biggest/flashiest, doesn't necessarily mean best. Cash strapped? The NHS was founded so that healthcare would be available to all - and let's face it, this little puny island of ours has produced some of the best doctors the world has seen, not to mention the odd discovery (Penicillin anyone?)
I'm not going to knock anyone's system (as you seem to be erroneously doing) because I live in the U.K. Your relative might air her views, but as someone who has been on life support three times, has come back from an advanced cancer, has seen her daughter receive intensive nursing and testing when born with a rare syndrome, has seen two of her grandchildren weighting less than 2lbs survive against the odds - I'll tell you I am proud of what we have. Doctors and surgeons are not deserting us in droves but fighting to preserve the NHS that they believe in. And you can quote me on that

@Ladybirf64 my point was that the US recruits the best doctors from all over the world and they aren't cash strapped.

@Ladybird I know personally 2 Doctors that came from UK One is a plastic surgeon the other a Dermatologist.

Does the UK have the high rate of medical bankruptcies that the US are well-known for?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

@Indy51 Why would you? The system suffers instead.
Yes Americans who don't have insurance risk bankruptcy.

Americans who have insurance risk bankruptcy as well. The entire purpose of the majority of insurance company employees is to find a way to deny claims.

mc9 said:

Which do you think is better and what would you change about them

Click to expand...

I don't really think it's an either/or. When I first came to the UK from Australia, I went to the doc with a heavy cold. As I left the office, I tried to pay the usual token amount I'd always paid at home and was told it was free. I was shocked, and remain shocked, 40 years later. The NHS is fantastic, and a wonderful theory. But it's just not practical. It can't possibly work in the longer term without an increase in tax (NI) or charging a small amount for those who can afford it. And why is there no penalty for patients who don't turn up for appointments? They clog up the system and make it so much harder for the really ill to be seen.

TorqPenderloin said:

I certainly think that the NHS has qualities that the US can learn from, but to say one is truly "Better" on a macro-level would be unfair imo. They're completely different if you ask me.

Click to expand...

I think you're 100% right and having been in a hospital in both countries, I can say there was absolutely no difference in care. Accents were obviously different, but care was excellent in both.

@TomGreen101, the introduction of the affordable care act in 2014 moved roughly 3% of US citizens into insurance in 2014, however 10% or so still remained without insurance. For the most part these were poor, black and hispanic and 4.5mn of them were children.

If 10% of the US population doesn't have insurance, and a good 50% of them are citing cost as the main reason for this, I'm not sure that arguing that "The US has the best doctors" makes a jot of difference, if not everybody can afford to access them. The CDC's stats state that 4.5% of people were unable to access needed healthcare due to cost. There is a lot of info on the CDC site about access.

I think you miss the point about the UK system. It ensures that 100% of the population have healthcare coverage by using progressive taxation to ensure that those who can afford to pay more subsidize those who can't. It means that no-one is left in the position where they have to choose between feeding their kids or paying for an operation to keep a member of their family alive. It means that the entire population has access to healthcare that is better than the majority could afford under the US system.

Those who want to top up can then do so, if they so wish, to access private facilities, no waiting lists, etc. But that's then a choice.

TomGreen101 said:

@JohnEGreen Americans prefer you pay for your own health care rather than someone else pays for your health care. They clearly reject Obama care and Sanderson's Socialism . There is very good reasons you National Healthcare system is cash strapped and the taxpayers are over taxed

Click to expand...

Americans pay far more in tax for healthcare than people in the UK do. This is in addition to the money they pay for health insurance. If you look at the OECD data for 2015, you can see that the USA spends $9451 per person on healthcare whereas the UK spends only $4003. http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm This money comes from taxes. The NHS is much more efficient than the US healthcare system. The reason that the NHS appears cash-strapped is that it continually aims for better outcomes while keeping costs down.

Despite paying less than half the amount that US citizens do, the quality of heathcare in the UK outstrips that in the USA. In 2014, the US-based Commonwealth Fund ranked 11 wealthy countries' healthcare systems - the UK came top overall, the USA came bottom and, what's more, the UK beat the USA on every standard that was looked at. You can scroll down for the table here:- http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

Good grief @Dark Horse that is a fascinating read! Thank you.

The two biggest shockers for me are the fact that the UK came top in so much, and beat Switzerland in all but 2 outcomes!
I find that astonishing.

The fact that the US costs are over twice as much per capita comes as no surprise at all.

TomGreen101 said:

@Ladybirf64 my point was that the US recruits the best doctors from all over the world and they aren't cash strapped.

Click to expand...

Who says they are the best? You do keep arguing the point about recruitment, pointing out how cash strapped the NHS is, then relaying how you know two doctors that came from the UK. So they are following the money - how does this make them better in their chosen field? It doesn't. Even your NYT article isn't about the best, just those following the money, many from much poorer countries..leaving those countries even worse off. But anyway, I feel like this could rumble on and on and on....so I'll leave you to your debate.

Crikey..I do think with ref to clinical outcomes in the UK that patients aren't aware of tertiary care being available if secondary care is failing them...

Also tertiary care is available only in few hospitals around the country. So people in these areas living are going to get better outcomes.

I can relate this back to myself and my diabetes.
2 hospitals and 1 pump manufacturer could not help me ref pump failure and what was happening. After brilliant advice from INPUT I was advised to ask for tertiary care. INPUT even gave me names of good clinical professors or honorary clinical staff to ask my GP to refer me to.
(The Manager from the 2nd failing diabetes hospital denied tertiary care was even available). When manager spoke to her colleagues and got back to me she said that she agreed to referal to new tertiary care hospital. She did not know that there was two options of referal a) the failing 2ndary hosp or the GP)....

So all the care consideration about UK, US and other countries may be also skewed upon where the patients lived and what hosptals they went to.

For the patient though... I think outcomesof health depends on where you live and whether your hospital is secondary or teriary care classified....

Americans have resisted socialized healthcare for years Obama tried to introduce it and it failed miserably.
Here in Canada we have universal healthcare and many Canadians want private health care as a choice. Many of our top Doctors have left for the US.
We pay nothing for our care but Americans reject this We also pay in our taxes and with a healthcare premium applied based on income.

Dark Horse said:

The reason that the NHS appears cash-strapped is that it continually aims for better outcomes while keeping costs down.

Click to expand...

My sister who works in the NHS is always complaining about the number of bean counters employed to monitor all the targets that are forced on the NHS (good and bad).

DavidGrahamJones said:

My sister who works in the NHS is always complaining about the number of bean counters employed to monitor all the targets that are forced on the NHS (good and bad).

Click to expand...

That's the politicians Graham, the British are brilliant innovators, engineers, scientists and inventers but the politicians (all parties) allowed accountants to run it.

I'm always amazed at the anti Americanism in the UK. I experienced it when I was a law student in London. I and a friend experienced because we sound American. He was Bermudian and became the crown Attorney of Bermuda.
America middle-class is the second wealthiest in the world, second only to Canada. They were the wealthiest but thanks to Obama they aren't anymore.
Living in London was a cultural shock for me.

TomGreen101 said:

I'm always amazed at the anti Americanism in the UK. I experienced it when I was a law student in London. I and a friend experienced because we sound American. He was Bermudian and became the crown Attorney of Bermuda.
America middle-class is the second wealthiest in the world, second only to Canada. They were the wealthiest but thanks to Obama they aren't anymore.
Living in London was a cultural shock for me.

Click to expand...

Visiting London was a cultural shock for me, and the last time I was there was about 1980.
London isn't representative of the rest of the UK.

@Bluetit1802 I traveled all over England ,sold guitars in Harrods of Knightsbridge, bought a Lotus Super 7 from the factory, and many other things that took me out of London.

England is not the UK.